For nearly a decade political scientists and pundits have been describing American society as highly polarized. But now, almost out of the blue, we have some pollsters and think tank studies suggesting that actually things are not as bad as they seem. According to them, voters are not as far apart on issues, and not as entrenched in their positions, as they may appear. A study by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, for example, concludes that “American politics may not be as polarized as we thought.”[i] The non-partisan Polarization Research Lab agrees. They conclude “on important philosophical themes – patriotism, respect for democracy, free speech, fair elections and independent courts – there is broad agreement.”[ii]
Perhaps their message is meant to reassure voters and/or those anxiously watching the American presidential campaign circus from afar, but it is a serious mistake and a potentially dangerous one. The great divide in American society exists, and it is almost unprecedented in scope and depth. You would have to go back to events like the Civil War (North versus South), President Johnson signing the Civil Rights Act and desegregation (Black versus White, North versus South again), or the Vietnam War (Hawks versus Doves)[iii] to find such deep fissures in American society. [iv]
Judging from the comments made by the promoters of this hopelessly optimistic view, they have mistakenly confused notional support for certain fundamental democratic concepts with agreement on what those concepts actually mean. (Then they have assumed that agreement on these concepts is enough to ensure there is no serious polarization of society.) Worse still, they have apparently failed to distinguish between the various demographic groups located on either side of this massive divide, choosing simply to refer to all Republicans, and all Democrats, as categories, as if they were homogenous groups. This failure, in turn, prevents them from identifying the reasons for the polarization, since each demographic group may well have their own concerns.
These are classic methodological errors.
To begin with, before concluding that there really is no serious divide between the two sides, because they seem to share agreement on key concepts, the studies should have dug deeper. They should have required people on both sides to explain these concepts (democracy, free speech, etc.) in order to see, first, if they understand them correctly and, second, if they perceive the current situation regarding these concepts in the same way. In the majority of cases the answer to both is NO. Recall that the January 6 protesters claimed that they were invading Congress because they were patriots defending democracy and the constitution. Recall also that virtually all of Trump’s MAGA supporters believe the 2020 election was “stolen”. People on the other side did NOT share those views. Put another way, agreement of the two sides about the importance of democratic terms tells us nothing. And there is every reason to believe that there is actually very little agreement between the two sides on the meaning and current credibility of the terms. This distinction is emphasized in another study that also found that only 3 in 10 Americans believe their democracy is functioning well.[v] In short, these recent arguments claiming the polarization of American society is not that great are simply wrong, and for multiple reasons.
This then highlights the problem caused by the proponents’ decision to ignore the diverse nature of the two opposing sides. Since the polarization of American society is real and significant, we need to understand who the actors are, on what basis they disagree and why.
The first task is not difficult. We know who the supporters of both camps are. The data are readily available in the form of voting intentions and polling. Black voters, for example, support the Harris Democrats over the Trump Republicans by a margin of 87% to 9%. A similar and only somewhat less dramatic gap exists for Harris with young voters under 30 (roughly 60% to 40%). By contrast Trump leads by a striking margin of 75% to 23% among rural voters, as well as leading by 64% -34% among white voters without college degrees. Even more telling is the gender gap, with Trump’s support among men at 58% to 40% and Harris’ support from women the exact reverse, at 57% to 41%. In addition, the data demonstrate that this yawning gap between black and white voters, men and women, young and old, rural and urban, and even college-educated versus blue collar, is not only substantial but in many cases reinforcing.
In order to bridge this divide it is crucial to understand what is motivating each of these subgroups. Political scientists have attempted to explain it through ideology ( right vs left leaning) and policy analysis (oil workers care about support for fracking in Pennsylvania, blue collar workers care about the cost of living and housing, women care about access to abortion, environmentalists care about climate change initiatives, and so on. ) However this approach has proven problematic as an explainer in this case, since many individual American voters are supporting someone ( often unwittingly) whose policies go against their own best interest. Another standard political science explanation, leadership and character, has been virtually irrelevant in this case. The era of Gary Hart is long past. MAGA supporters now wear Tshirts proclaiming they are proud to support a convicted felon.
There have been some attempts to apply psychology to the problem, and notably Jung’s concept of rational actor voters versus the narcissistic majority.[vi] This explanation, however, only applies to one side – the MAGA Republicans – and focuses on what it describes as various unresolved issues in American political culture (north versus south, black versus white, blue collar versus woke elites) and especially highlights the concept of misogyny and resistance to a female president. (Given the Equal Rights Amendment still has not been adopted and the Supreme Court has recently trashed Roe vs Wade this is perhaps not surprising). But this type of analysis is both highly speculative and difficult to substantiate.
Then there is the obvious question of why such a despotic figure as Trump should have been able to succeed on the political stage at this particular time and place. This is especially salient since earlier right wing Republicans such as Nixon and Reagan were able to succeed politically by far less antagonistic methods and policies. Here it is economists who have tried to lead the way by highlighting the fact that both income disparity and especially the wealth gap in America have increased exponentially since the 1980’s. Indeed, the gap far exceeds the situation in 1928 when President Franklin D Roosevelt introduced the New Deal, and is now the greatest among western democracies.[vii] Of course this income disparity disproportionately affects black, rural and non college-educated white Americans the most. Put another way, economists note the polarization that Trump was able to exploit was already substantively greater than that of previous eras, and that it has built in a cascading fashion on the numerous unresolved issues identified above.
None of these various explanations is sufficient in itself to explain this extraordinary phenomenon, but their findings tend to reinforce each other and a combination of these various approaches undoubtedly comes closer to providing meaningful insights. Meanwhile voters themselves have a very clear idea of how great the polarization is. The only point on which the two sides seem to be in agreement is that the country is heading in the wrong direction. And nearly two thirds of registered voters indicate they believe the country will still be badly divided after the election. Certainly Trump, with his dangerous musings about “the enemy within”, will only exacerbate this deep-seated polarization, while Harris will need to do far more than talk about “turning the page” if she hopes to rebuild trust and restore social cohesion.
[i] D. Shribman. “American Politics May Not Be That Polarized After All”. Globe and Mail. November 2, 2024
[ii] Shribman.
[iii] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opposition_to_United_States_involvement_in_the_Vietnam_War (see the section on polarization)
[iv] https://theconversation.com/political-sectarianism-is-fracturing-america-242327
[v] https://apnews.com/article/ap-poll-democracy-rights-freedoms-election-b1047da72551e13554a3959487e5181a
[vi] I. Brown. “The American Psychology and the Death of the Rational Actor”. Globe and Mail. Nov.4, 2024.
[vii] https://eml.berkeley.edu/~saez/SaezZucman14slides.pdf
