The Pattern of Polarization

 The Pattern of Polarization - Anna Mae Walker

 

               The United States has become increasingly politically polarized over the past 20 years. Most would point to the most recent 2020 general election as a uniquely contentious event. The 2020 election cycle hit a new level of contention in the media, in politics, and among American citizens. These political disagreements have led to family and social relationships being fractured and at times ended. Just last week, my husband and I had a conversation with our grandparents in which I was worried that not agreeing with their conservative values would ruin the relationship. Most Americans can relate with similar experiences with highly opinionated citizens. But how does this process or polarization come about?

               Back in the 1950’s the American Political Science Review released a large study (APSA article) about the state of American Politics at the time. They felt that the two parties in the United States were too similar. This left the American public with limited political options. Their solution to this problem was to argue for stronger party identities and essentially greater political polarization. Seeing the situation that we are experiencing today this seems like a counterintuitive suggestion. How did their analysis and recommendations lead us to where we are today?

               Modern political science research is much more wary of the affects of political polarization. From our research and summary of modern political theory, we created a pattern of polarization that responds to the suggestions presented by the APSA article. We think that understanding this pattern of polarization shows the key flaw in the APSA article.

               The pattern of polarization we have developed has three main steps. Polarization starts with a difference in ideologies. As groups start to trend towards ideological extremes, we see ideological polarization. This level of polarization is not attached to individual people or issues but rather just trends conservative or trends liberal. It is simply a difference in opinions. The next step in this pattern of polarization is political polarization. This is when ideological differences are attached to specific parties, people, and issues. This is when we see the political elite and party platforms becoming more divided on key issues. It is important to note that this division can happen with out the level of interpersonal contention we are seeing today. This is an issue of politics and not of relationships. The third step in this pattern of polarization is affective polarization. Affective polarization is the dislike and distrust between Democrats and Republicans. It is not just ideological differences or political differences, but rather a fractured relationship between two groups because of politics. Affective polarization is the phenomenon that makes people so frustrated and uncomfortable with the recent 2020 election. It wasn’t just that there were extreme ideological trends, or strong political opinions. It was that we saw dislike and at times hatred run rampant throughout the 2020 election cycle. Affective polarization, the final step in the pattern of polarization, is the cause of many of the issues we see with political polarization today.

               So how does this pattern of polarization respond to the suggestions in the APSA article? We think that this pattern we have developed from modern literature shows a flawed assumption that the APSA article based its argument on. In the paper, the APSA authors assumed that America was not ideologically divided so political polarization could benefit the American people. After observing this pattern of polarization, we believe that their biggest mistake was not perceiving the ideological polarization that America really had and not understanding the consequences of affective polarization. In the 1950s there were many groups of people who were not represented in American politics. As the United States progressed and more African American or female candidates won office, the true state of American ideology was recognized. The APSA authors did not think there was any ideological divide because they were not looking at the entire American populous. They also failed to predict the contention that would arise from stronger group identities. They didn’t predict this issue of affective polarization where the parties have turned into liked ingroups and disliked outgroups. Understanding polarization in the United States will be key to understanding politics to come.