Although some may argue the increasing presence of political campaigning on social media is helping voters to be more informed and active citizens, it is in fact a major driving force behind party polarization because of its accessibility as a forum to discuss personal ideologies. Social media users can access global conversations and take a stance on issues they feel strongly about without facing the repercussions of a face-to-face encounter. Yes, more people are political engaged, but some at the level of borderline extremist party beliefs, which has caused a real divide between citizens. During the fallout of the most recent presidential election, many who voted for Hillary Clinton that were so distraught by her loss were unable to remain amicable with Donald Trump voters because they could not understand or sympathize with his character and therefore transferred their anger to their personal lives, ending friendships and weakening familial ties. The intensity of these feelings is prevalent on social media sites and is proven to increase polarization. Historically, polarization is at an all-time high and studies show a correlation to this increase and the invention and popularization of modern technology. Because certain interactions can lead to harsh feelings and divisiveness amongst the electorate, understanding the negative capabilities of social media is imperative to avoid more severe issues that stem from the ever-increasing use of technology today. 

Per Pew Research Center, “seven-in-ten Americans use social media to connect with one another, engage with news content, share information and entertain themselves.” This statistic has gone up by over 65% in just over a decade. Not only is a large percentage of the American population in possession of a social media profile, but around 75% of users are logging in to these sites to retrieve information at least once a day (Greenwood et al.). That means there is an incredible amount of information continuously being processed, distributed, and exchanged every single day. One can easily log onto the internet and quickly have all the material they could ever want or need at their fingertips. This availability of information has been a major influence in the development of our current society where people depend and rely on what they read online because they are ignorant to another way of obtaining knowledge about extraneous topics. This happens to be the case in young adults who have always been, and will continue to be, the most prominent users of social media, especially because they have not truly known a time without computers, and more specifically the internet. This generation seems almost inept to comprehend the importance of genuine communication and personal connection, simply hiding behind screens all day only able to speak through a keyboard. This disconnect is a huge driving force behind the divide between political parties, because a divide exists not just between generations of voters but within the generations as well. But this generation is not the only one responsible for these changes. Due to the increasing popularity of smart phone technology and the apps that accompany them, social media sites have expanded their user bases to contain almost every demographic group. Sites like Facebook and Twitter encompass the opinions and life updates of even demographic groups once thought to be outliers, like the elderly and children, who would normally not have a voice or interest in participating in the conversations that occur via these communication forums. Participation of younger generations though has the most influential impact on the most recent election cycle and the evolvement of party polarization, because of high volume social media usage, this age group is becoming more engaged and aware about the issues they are passionate about that affect this country (Vromen et al.). Since the beginning of this nation, the young adults that were informed about the political climate were always extremely impassioned to create change, they were just lacking the supporters to affect it. Finally, it seems as if they may have enough backing to make a difference. In this past election for example, Bernie Sanders, the famously ultra alt-left Senator from Vermont, made waves in the primaries as he gained popularity that no person could have foreseen. His socialist platform that advocated for policies like free college education, redistribution of wealth and government-funded healthcare, gained traction with the student demographic and posed as a major threat to the Democratic party’s more traditional choice for candidate, Hillary Clinton. This shift was clearly demonstrated by the outcome of the Iowa caucus, where 84 percent of young voters supported Sanders in lieu of Secretary Clinton (Kawashima-Ginsberg). It was now that party leaders on both the left and right realized that they would have to alter their platform immediately to be able to satisfy the desires of changing electorate in order to win the election. A new voice had emerged and it was determined to be heard. 

Due to the overwhelming population of social media users, it is important to understand how natural human behaviors and interactions are transferred onto the computer screen and present in the day-to-day use of social media. The term homophily, meaning love of the same, is often used to describe the impulse of humans to connect with and gravitate towards those who share similar ideologies or belief systems. Naturally, one may choose their friends and acquaintances because of a shared interest or mindset, because what else would bring two people together? It is really through social media interaction that this natural tendency is accelerated due to the unavoidable exposure to the most extreme sides of an argument (W.P. Carey School). This is especially true with the anonymity of social media which allows one to speak without any filter or fear of retribution.  When online, people who once held a more neutral mindset are encouraged to become more involved and take a real stance in what they believe in. But with each opposing side taking this approach, it often leads to people being pitted against each other in emotional arguments with little to no common ground (Prior). It seems almost as if this instinctive behavior of connecting with others may also be the downfall to destroying relationships along the way.

On social media sites, it is by no means a rarity to come across a hateful message or a bitter exchange between users. The topics for these arguments range, but without fail, the posting of political beliefs is a sure-fire way to spark a conversation. During this past election season, due to the extreme differences in both policy and personal characters, voters appeared to be more vocal and more divided than ever before. President Donald Trump was an avid Twitter user in the past, and he did not shake this habit come election season. In fact, the frequency of his tweets and the content he posted completely altered the strategy for modern campaigning by directing the conversation to an online forum with complete open conversation (Kapko). This allowed voters to become more knowledgeable about current issues as they occurred, voice their opinions instantly and be heard by their politicians, actually making a personal impact as a member of the electorate. This empowered voters, especially young adults, but simultaneously caused them to develop overenthusiastic attitudes, becoming hyper-sensitive to opposing viewpoints and causing verbal altercations between the two parties (Vromen et al.). Many people became so attached to their respective candidate, that they took personal offense when someone they were affiliated with had a different perspective. Strangers assaulted each other, friendships were ended and even familial ties cut because of the deep-rooted mindset of division. For some reason, it was completely impossible to support your side and empathize with the other. In one of his articles, New York Times reporter Mike Isaac analyzed just how much Facebook could impact the relationships between its users, specifically when it came to conversation regarding the election. He discussed its function as a primary distributor of Fake News stories and the repercussions associated with this as many voters relied on social media to keep them “informed”. The situation was only made worse with the fallout of the election. Logging in to Facebook became an arduous task where one was bound to enter a hostile environment (Isaac). It was so convenient for users to speak their mind and stir up trouble because they could hide behind a computer and never truly have to face anyone or be responsible if they did not wish to face the reality of their actions. The ignorance and inability to compromise on social media because of the lack of repercussions has accelerated the political divide in the United States. 

Going hand in hand with the convenience and efficiency of social media, is the set boundaries imposed by some sites. Twitter for example, has a 140-character limit for each tweet and has a set restriction on the number of tweets you can send in a certain period of time. Even though these constraints ensure brief posts, therein limiting the ability to speak one’s mind, it actually strengthens social movements and the push of beliefs by utilizing the same effects as audio/visual sound bites, just instead creating a hashtag. In a paper written by Sarah Brenne on political discussion on social media and how it alters the public sphere she analyzes The Black Lives Matter movement to provide evidence of her argument. She states that social media was the catalyst of the movement and that these media sites, as a whole, are responsible for inducing mass protest. “The use of images, icons, GIFs and symbols make claims to truth on social media which has an unprecedented ability to spread fragmentary references...have a greater likelihood to be interpreted ways that are further from the messages intended meaning.” She later expands on this, 

“The language used on social media…the use of hashtag #handsupdontshoot remained a rallying cry of a movement to draw attention to racial inequality in the United States. Therefore, the fragmentary reference, one example of racial oppression, is able to communicated a narrative that is interpreted by the citizen in the form of a myth” (Brenne). 

These hashtags allow the movements to take off with a simple hit of the retweet button creating a viral message in a matter of seconds. Some view this epidemic as a complete manipulation of the masses to accomplish their own personal, much smaller agenda. It is movements like Black Lives Matter that take off online, that accelerate the discord between political parties. It appears to be impossible to be pro-police and against the unequal treatment of African Americans without getting attacked for one’s opposing opinion regardless the stance one might take. This inability to sympathize with others of different belief systems leads to the inability of our representatives to compromise on issues in Congress, which in turn leads to accusations about the capabilities of each party, therein accomplishing nothing and causing governmental shutdowns. This fundamental flaw with the use of social media is causing a vicious cycle that is inescapable and the driving force for the divergence in the sense of community and cooperation surrounding political involvement. 

Numerous studies evaluate the history of party polarization within this country and it is abundantly clear that polarization is at an all-time high. In a Ted Talk by Peter Coleman on this issue, he details the immense level of polarization in the county and the implications it will cause for our governmental system. The most crucial impact of this talk though is that it occurred in November of 2012, right before the election of Barack Obama for his second term. This was a pivotal election year, and if party polarization was a problem then, then the situation is drastically worse as time has passed and with the 2016 election year (Coleman).  In another study conducted by the Pew Research Center, they have a graphic that illustrates how drastically the ideologies of political parties have moved further away from the middle on both sides of the spectrum. Even in just the last twenty years, the “middle ground” or overlap of moderate beliefs is quickly disappearing. The most perplexing result of this gradual shift is that the most the most extreme sides of the spectrum, which compromises only about 20% of the total population, are known to impact politics more than the remaining percent of the population. This small percentage encompasses citizens who are more likely to vote and actively participate in campaigns, donating both money and time (Mitchell et al.). It is important to a society that the most informed voters are the most influential in dictating and affecting change in policy and the governmental system, but it should not be the most severe ideologies that are guiding this change. It is imperative to transform political involvement to become a more inclusive field where all are welcome to speak their mind and contribute to change without fear of being met with unaccepting attitudes.

Social media sites, such as Facebook and Twitter, were without a doubt a driving force behind the polarization of the last election season that caused such heightened emotional breakdowns because of all the reasons detailed above. There is no other reason or explanation besides the introduction of online communication that so strongly correlates to the escalation of polarization that has occurred within this country in the past twenty years. It is the manipulation of information that is mass distributed and targeted at accomplishing a specific agenda, the convenience and ability to post and access whatever one may desire, and the radicalization of political ideologies through online arguments that have caused the split to deepen in the political system in the United States. It is imperative that the leaders of this nation recognize the enormous impact of this problem and analyze how it is altering the dynamic of our government, in order find a solution that does not diminish the fundamental right to free speech, but instead focuses on open conversations that will bring the country more unified and improve the ability to work side by side to continue to allow our government to accomplish great things for years to come. 
