Political polarization in the U.S.

Divisions and ideological realignments in contemporary American politics

Political polarization in the United States denotes the process by which partisan identity, ideology, and emotion have become increasingly aligned and mutually reinforcing within American life. The phenomenon encompasses both ideological polarization, divergence in policy preferences, and affective polarization; the social and psychological estrangement of citizens from opposing parties.[1][2]

From the perspective of political development, polarization reflects a slow disintegration of the cross-cutting loyalties that once moderated factionalism in the United States. The founding generation viewed organized partisanship as an inevitable but dangerous feature of republican government. The gradual solidification of the modern two-party system transformed those competing interests into enduring identities, producing both stability and chronic tension. By the early 21st century, polarization had evolved from a policy phenomenon into a social architecture shaping how Americans interpret morality, truth, and citizenship itself.[3]

## Contents

* 1 Historical evolution
* 1.1 Early and 19th century factionalism
* 1.2 The mid-20th century consensus
* 1.3 Information revolutions and partisan sorting
* 2 Structural causes
* 2.1 Institutional incentives
* 2.2 Social geography and cultural identity
* 2.3 Immigration, border management, and voter eligibility debates
* 2.4 Media fragmentation and digital acceleration
* 3 Additional structural dynamics
* 3.1 Institutional and elite incentives
* 3.2 Demographic and religious realignment
* 3.3 Redistricting and representation
* 3.4 Immigration, citizenship, and national belonging
* 4 Electoral realignment and contemporary dynamics
* 5 Democratic implications
* 6 See also
* 7 References

## Historical evolution[edit | edit source]

The development of political polarization in the United States reflects a continuous reordering of party systems, regional alignments, and social identities. Its trajectory can be traced through four broad eras: the early republic’s struggle over the legitimacy of faction, the 19th century’s sectional and economic divisions, the mid-20th period of ideological moderation, and the contemporary era of ideological and cultural consolidation. Each phase arose from structural shifts in governance, economy, and communication that either widened or narrowed the boundaries of consensus. Whereas 19th century polarization was driven by material and regional cleavages, the 21st century’s divisions are increasingly moral, informational, and institutional—rooted in differing conceptions of truth, authority, and the American national purpose.[3][4]

### Early and 19th century factionalism[edit | edit source]

American factionalism predates the Constitution. The dispute between Federalists and Anti-Federalists anticipated later alignments between centralized and localist visions of governance. By the mid-19th century, divisions over slavery and industrialization had fused moral and regional identities, culminating in the American Civil War. Postwar party coalitions reflected sectional memory rather than ideology: the Republican Party dominated the North and industrial Midwest, while Democrats consolidated the South and urban immigrant centers.[5]

### The mid-20th century consensus[edit | edit source]

The decades following World War II produced an unusually moderate equilibrium sometimes described as the “postwar consensus.” Economic prosperity, global leadership, and shared religious and civic institutions created overlapping identities that softened partisan boundaries. Both parties contained ideological diversity: liberal Republicans such as Nelson Rockefeller and conservative Democrats such as Sam Ervin operated within the same legislative mainstream.[6]

This balance eroded after the civil rights realignment of the 1960s and 1970s. The Democratic Party’s embrace of social liberalism and minority enfranchisement shifted its base toward urban, academic, and minority constituencies. Simultaneously, the Republican Party absorbed disaffected southern conservatives and religious traditionalists, uniting fiscal conservatism with cultural reaction. By the 1980s, the ideological heterogeneity of each party had diminished markedly.[7][8][9]

### Information revolutions and partisan sorting[edit | edit source]

The communications revolution of the late 20th century reshaped the conditions for political socialization. Cable television and talk radio segmented audiences along ideological lines, while digital algorithms later magnified tribal reinforcement. Studies show that by the 2010s, Americans were consuming sharply distinct informational ecosystems, with limited overlap in news exposure or interpretive frames.[10]

At the elite level, party leaders recognized that mobilizing resentment was often more effective than appealing to centrists. The result was a politics organized less around persuasion than identity affirmation. Historians increasingly describe this era as a transition from ideological pluralism to “tribal rationality,” wherein voters interpret policy positions through moral loyalties rather than instrumental reasoning.[11][2][3]

## Structural causes[edit | edit source]

File:Democratic positions.svg

Pew Research Center chart showing partisan clustering on key policy issues.

The endurance of political polarization in the United States cannot be explained by rhetoric or personalities alone. It reflects the interaction of several structural forces—institutional incentives, geographic and demographic sorting, immigration and citizenship debates, and transformations in mass communication—that together have reshaped how Americans organize and perceive political conflict. Each factor reinforces the others: electoral design encourages partisan homogeneity; cultural identity magnifies policy disputes; and digital networks convert disagreement into social separation. Understanding these underlying mechanisms clarifies why polarization has proven resistant to cyclical correction and why it now functions as a defining feature of the modern American political system.[3][12]

### Institutional incentives[edit | edit source]

Modern polarization is sustained by the structure of American institutions. Winner-take-all elections and primary systems reward ideological purity, while geographically sorted populations produce safe districts. Both major parties exploit redistricting to entrench advantage, though their geographic strengths differ. Republican-controlled states dominate rural territory, while Democratic control of dense urban centers yields comparably distorted outcomes in state legislatures.[13]

Legislative incentives now privilege symbolic confrontation over compromise. Congressional scholars note that bipartisan coalitions, once routine on fiscal and foreign-policy matters, have become nearly extinct. The increasing use of executive orders and judicial interventions reflects the institutional adaptation of governance to a permanently divided electorate.[14][15]

### Social geography and cultural identity[edit | edit source]

Political identity increasingly corresponds with lifestyle, education, and geography. Highly educated urban populations lean Democratic; rural and exurban regions remain predominantly Republican. Migration patterns have intensified ideological clustering, producing what some demographers term “the big sort.” Shared information environments reinforce localized consensus, transforming communities into ideological enclaves.[16][17]

Religious affiliation and moral cosmology remain powerful markers of division. Surveys show that church attendance and attitudes toward gender, sexuality, and national identity correlate strongly with partisanship. What began as a policy cleavage over the role of government has evolved into a moral divide over the definition of America itself.[18]

### Immigration, border management, and voter eligibility debates[edit | edit source]

Immigration has become a defining axis of cultural and partisan identity. Record migrant encounters under the Biden administration—exceeding eight million between 2021 and 2025—have intensified perceptions of state incapacity and unequal enforcement.[19] The administration characterizes its approach as humane and law-based; opponents describe it as “open borders” and cite resulting strains on social infrastructure and security.[20]

Parallel disputes concern voter eligibility and election integrity. Investigations reported by The Epoch Times and Fox News have identified instances of noncitizens appearing on voter rolls, often through automatic registration at state DMVs. State audits in Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Arizona confirmed thousands of such registrations over several decades, with dozens of actual ballots cast.[21][22]

Federal law prohibits noncitizen participation in federal elections, yet several municipalities—including Washington, D.C., San Francisco, and local jurisdictions in Maryland—permit noncitizens to vote in municipal contests.[23] Conservative analysts argue that such policies dilute civic meaning and invite abuse; progressive advocates describe them as local democracy measures for permanent residents. The intensity of this debate demonstrates how questions of citizenship have become symbolic of the nation’s deeper struggle over belonging and legitimacy.[24][25]

### Media fragmentation and digital acceleration[edit | edit source]

The digital environment has turned ideological isolation into a structural feature of civic life. Algorithms on social platforms amplify emotional and moral content, rewarding outrage and punishing nuance. Whereas broadcast-era media anchored debate within a shared factual space, 21st century communications incentivize self-curation and tribal identity.[26]

Empirical analyses show that online interactions are strongly homophilous—users mainly encounter like-minded individuals—and that moral-emotional language spreads more rapidly than factual argument. As a result, partisanship has become performative, and identity reinforcement a form of social capital. Political mobilization now occurs as much through cultural signaling as through traditional party organization.[27][28]

## Additional structural dynamics[edit | edit source]

The durability of political polarization in the United States reflects a combination of elite incentives, demographic realignments, representational design, and contested notions of citizenship. Whereas earlier structural factors explain how polarization emerged, these additional dynamics illustrate why it has persisted and deepened across generations. Political scientists describe this as a feedback cycle: elites adopt polarizing tactics to mobilize loyal voters, while social and institutional mechanisms amplify division even among citizens who might otherwise favor moderation.[14][11]

### Institutional and elite incentives[edit | edit source]

At the elite level, political leaders increasingly view polarization as electorally advantageous. Competitive majorities in Congress encourage perpetual campaigning, with party loyalty rewarded over cross-party coalition building. Political scientists Frances Lee and Gary Jacobson note that bipartisan cooperation has become rare even on fiscal and foreign-policy matters, as legislative behavior now centers on partisan symbolism rather than consensus.[15][14] The growth of independent expenditure groups and political action committees following Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (2010) further entrenched polarization by tying campaign success to ideological donors rather than broad coalitions. Analysts such as Thomas Mann and Norman Ornstein describe this system as a “permanent campaign,” where fundraising and partisanship reinforce one another.[29][30] Moderate candidates are less likely to seek office in such conditions. As Danielle Thomsen’s research demonstrates, those who deviate from their party’s ideological center face reduced funding and primary challenges from within their own ranks.[31]

### Demographic and religious realignment[edit | edit source]

The interaction between education, geography, and religion has magnified cultural identity as a political marker. Since the 1990s, the Democratic coalition has become increasingly urban, professional, and secular, while Republican strength has consolidated among rural, religious, and non-college-educated populations.[17]

Political scientists Geoffrey Layman, John Green, and David Campbell find that religiosity strongly predicts partisan alignment: traditionalist and evangelical voters have migrated toward the Republican Party, while religiously moderate or unaffiliated voters identify more closely with Democrats.[32][33]

Demographic diversification and mass migration have further intensified clustering of like-minded voters. Bill Bishop’s concept of “the big sort” describes how Americans increasingly self-select into communities aligned with their social and political identities, producing fewer competitive districts and stronger local ideological uniformity.[16]

### Redistricting and representation[edit | edit source]

Redistricting remains one of the most debated institutional contributors to polarization. Studies by Nolan McCarty, Keith Poole, and Howard Rosenthal conclude that gerrymandering has only a modest effect on polarization, since the same trends appear in the Senate, which is not subject to redistricting.[34] However, regional asymmetries remain significant. States with single-party control, both Republican and Democratic, have drawn district maps that limit electoral competition, entrench incumbents, and reduce the number of centrist representatives.[35]

Political scientists Seth Masket and Jonathan Winburn similarly argue that redistricting effects are amplified when combined with geographic self-sorting: voters increasingly reside in culturally homogeneous regions, making even neutral district maps produce polarized outcomes.[36]

### Immigration, citizenship, and national belonging[edit | edit source]

Contemporary polarization increasingly turns on debates over citizenship, immigration, and the definition of civic inclusion. Since the 2010s, disputes over border management, voting eligibility, and noncitizen participation in local elections have become proxies for broader ideological divides about national identity.

Conservative commentators argue that expansive local voting rights and lenient border policies erode civic meaning and invite abuse, while progressive analysts contend that such measures reflect democratic participation for permanent residents rather than electoral manipulation.[24][25]

Political theorists describe these disputes as part of a deeper symbolic conflict over belonging and legitimacy, where questions of citizenship function as moral boundaries within partisan identity rather than as procedural disagreements.[2][11]

## Electoral realignment and contemporary dynamics[edit | edit source]

The 2024 United States presidential election confirmed the endurance of partisan polarization while revealing subtle demographic shifts. According to Pew Research Center and AP VoteCast, former President Donald Trump received approximately 22% of his support from nonwhite voters, including roughly 16% of Black voters and increased margins among Hispanic and working-class men.[37][38] These realignments, though modest, indicate that partisan identities are not static and that cultural rather than purely economic factors increasingly determine affiliation.

Analysts note a widening gap between politically active Americans—roughly one-fifth of the electorate—and the less engaged majority. Political scientists Yanna Krupnikov and John Barry Ryan describe this as “the other divide”: an era in which polarization is intense among expressive partisans but shallow among ordinary citizens.[39] This asymmetry suggests that America’s visible political rancor may overstate the lived division of the population, yet it continues to shape institutions, media, and public discourse.

## Democratic implications[edit | edit source]

The durability of polarization raises fundamental questions about the resilience of the American constitutional system. Founders such as James Madison envisioned factions as self-canceling forces within a large republic, assuming diversity of interests would prevent any single coalition from dominating.[40] In the contemporary era, however, polarization fuses factional interest with personal and group identity, transforming disagreement into social division. As Frances Lee notes, Congress now functions less as a deliberative body and more as a campaign arena, where political success is measured by confrontation rather than governance.[14]

Political scientists caution that when partisanship becomes moralized—when adversaries are perceived as illegitimate rather than merely mistaken—democracies risk a transition toward sectarianism.[11] This process of “affective polarization,” described by Shanto Iyengar and colleagues, erodes trust in electoral outcomes and reduces support for institutional norms.[2] Social psychologist Jonathan Haidt links this moralization to declining cross-party friendships and civic cooperation, producing a society that prioritizes moral outrage over pragmatic compromise.[41] While the United States retains stabilizing mechanisms—federalism, separation of powers, and a robust civil society—these same features can also perpetuate division when rival coalitions exploit them as tools of obstruction or delegitimization.[3]

Comparative research suggests that polarization becomes destabilizing when combined with declining civic trust and concentrated media ecosystems.[42] The United States thus exemplifies both resilience and vulnerability: its constitutional architecture discourages authoritarian capture but simultaneously rewards gridlock. Whether American pluralism can once again sustain a unifying civic narrative depends on whether citizens and institutions can reestablish a shared sense of legitimacy across moral and ideological divides. As scholars increasingly note, depolarization will require not only procedural reform but also a cultural revaluation of disagreement as a democratic strength rather than a civic failure.[11][2][41]

## See also[edit | edit source]

* Ideological polarization
* Affective polarization
* Culture war in the United States
* Media bias in the United States
* Partisan realignment in the United States

## References[edit | edit source]

1. ^ Heltzel, Gordon; Laurin, Kristin (August 2020). "Polarization in America: Two Possible Futures". Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences. 34: 179–184. doi:10.1016/j.cobeha.2020.03.008.
2. ^ a b c d e Iyengar, Shanto (2022). Sibley, Chris G. (ed.). Fear and Loathing in American Politics: A Review of Affective Polarisation. The Cambridge Handbook of Political Psychology. Cambridge University Press. pp. 399–413. ISBN 978-1-108-48963-8.
3. ^ a b c d e Pierson, Paul; Schickler, Eric (2020). "Madison's Constitution Under Stress: A Developmental Analysis of Political Polarization". Annual Review of Political Science. 23: 37–58. doi:10.1146/annurev-polisci-050718-033629.
4. ^ Fiorina, Morris P.; Abrams, Samuel J. (2008). "Political Polarization in the American Public". Annual Review of Political Science. 11: 563–588. doi:10.1146/annurev.polisci.11.053106.153836.
5. ^ Jensen, J.; Naidu, S.; Kaplan, E. (2012). "Political Polarization and the Dynamics of Political Language: Evidence from 130 Years of Partisan Speech". Brookings Papers on Economic Activity: 1–81. doi:10.1353/eca.2012.0017.
6. ^ "What History Teaches About Partisanship and Polarization". Scholars Strategy Network. July 23, 2018. Retrieved October 13, 2025.
7. ^ Black, Earl; Black, Merle (2002). The Rise of Southern Republicans. Harvard University Press. ISBN 978-0674012486.
8. ^ Levendusky, Matthew (2009). "The Partisan Sort: How Liberals Became Democrats and Conservatives Became Republicans". University of Chicago Press. doi:10.7208/chicago/9780226473673.001.0001.
9. ^ Zengerle, Jason (June 29, 2022). "The Vanishing Moderate Democrat". The New York Times. Retrieved October 13, 2025.
10. ^ Boxell, Levi; Gentzkow, Matthew; Shapiro, Jesse M. (2022). "Cross-Country Trends in Affective Polarization". Review of Economics and Statistics: 1–60. doi:10.1162/rest_a_01160.
11. ^ a b c d e Finkel, Eli J.; Bail, Christopher A.; Cikara, Mina; Ditto, Peter H.; Iyengar, Shanto; Klar, Samara; Mason, Lilliana; McGrath, Mary C.; Nyhan, Brendan; Rand, David G.; Skitka, Linda J. (October 30, 2020). "Political Sectarianism in America". Science. 370 (6516): 533–536. doi:10.1126/science.abe1715. PMID 33122374.
12. ^ Finkel, Eli J.; Bail, Christopher A.; Cikara, Mina (October 2020). "Political Sectarianism in America". Science. 370 (6516): 533–536. doi:10.1126/science.abe1715.
13. ^ "How Gerrymandering Tilts the 2024 Race for the House". Brennan Center for Justice. Retrieved October 13, 2025.
14. ^ a b c d Lee, Frances E. (2016). Insecure Majorities: Congress and the Perpetual Campaign. University of Chicago Press. ISBN 978-0226409047. "The constant competition for majority control has shifted congressional behavior from policy-making to partisan signaling, leaving little incentive for compromise."
15. ^ a b Jacobson, Gary C. (2015). "Polarization, Gridlock, and Presidential Power in Congress". Presidential Studies Quarterly. 45 (2): 258–289. doi:10.1111/psq.12182. "Declining bipartisan coalitions and the increased use of unilateral executive actions mark Congress’s adaptation to persistent partisan division."
16. ^ a b Bishop, Bill (2008). The Big Sort: Why the Clustering of Like-Minded America is Tearing Us Apart. Houghton Mifflin. ISBN 978-0547237725.
17. ^ a b Florida, Richard (2017). "The New Urban Crisis and the Rise of Political Polarization". City & Community. 16 (2): 112–120. doi:10.1111/cico.12228.
18. ^ Tyler, Matthew; Iyengar, Shanto (2022). "Learning to Dislike Your Opponents: Political Socialization in the Era of Polarization". American Political Science Review: 1–8. doi:10.1017/S000305542200048X.
19. ^ "Record Border Crossings Under Biden Administration". The Epoch Times. March 3, 2025. Retrieved October 13, 2025.
20. ^ "The Border Crisis Is Biden's Biggest Liability". The Wall Street Journal. February 10, 2025. Retrieved October 13, 2025.
21. ^ "Noncitizens Have Been Voting in U.S. Elections for Years, Investigations Show". The Epoch Times. March 21, 2024. Retrieved October 13, 2025.
22. ^ "Election Investigation Uncovers Alleged Illegal Voting by Noncitizens and Double Voters Across Eight States". Fox News. March 17, 2024. Retrieved October 13, 2025.
23. ^ "Citizenship Should Be Required to Vote". The Wall Street Journal. October 13, 2023. Retrieved October 13, 2025.
24. ^ a b Hanson, Victor Davis (April 8, 2024). "Eroding Citizenship and the Meaning of the Vote". The Epoch Times. Retrieved October 13, 2025.
25. ^ a b Levine, David (June 9, 2023). "Noncitizen Voting Is Not a Threat to U.S. Elections". Brookings Institution. Retrieved October 13, 2025.
26. ^ Tucker, Joshua A.; Guess, Andrew; Barberá, Pablo; Vaccari, Christian; Siegel, Alexandra; Sanovich, Sergei; Stukal, Denis; Nemr, Brendan (2018). Social Media, Political Polarization, and Political Disinformation: A Review of the Scientific Literature. Hewlett Foundation. Retrieved October 13, 2025.
27. ^ Brady, W. J.; Wills, Julian A.; Jost, John T.; Tucker, Joshua A.; Van Bavel, Jay J. (2017). "Emotion Shapes the Diffusion of Moralized Content in Social Networks". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 114 (28): 7313–7318. doi:10.1073/pnas.1618923114.
28. ^ Sunstein, Cass R. (2017). #Republic: Divided Democracy in the Age of Social Media. Princeton University Press. ISBN 978-0691175515.
29. ^ Mann, Thomas E.; Ornstein, Norman J. (2012). It's Even Worse Than It Looks. Basic Books. ISBN 978-0465031337.
30. ^ Kaiser, Robert G. (2010). So Damn Much Money: The Triumph of Lobbying and the Corrosion of American Government. Vintage Books. ISBN 978-0307385888.
31. ^ Thomsen, Danielle M. (2014). "Ideological Moderates Won't Run: How Party Fit Matters for Partisan Polarization in Congress". The Journal of Politics. 76 (3): 786–797. doi:10.1017/s0022381614000243.
32. ^ Layman, Geoffrey C.; Green, John C. (2006). "Wars and Rumours of Wars: The Contexts of Cultural Conflict in American Political Behaviour". British Journal of Political Science. 36 (1): 61–89. doi:10.1017/S0007123406000044.
33. ^ Campbell, David E.; Green, John C.; Layman, Geoffrey C. (2011). "The Party Faithful: Partisan Images, Candidate Religion, and the Electoral Impact of Party Identification". American Journal of Political Science. 55 (1): 42–58. doi:10.1111/j.1540-5907.2010.00474.x.
34. ^ McCarty, Nolan; Poole, Keith T.; Rosenthal, Howard (2009). "Does Gerrymandering Cause Polarization?". American Journal of Political Science. 53 (3): 666–680. doi:10.1111/j.1540-5907.2009.00393.x.
35. ^ Wasserman, David; Flinn, Ally (April 7, 2017). "Introducing the 2017 Cook Political Report Partisan Voter Index". The Cook Political Report. Retrieved October 13, 2025.
36. ^ Masket, Seth E.; Winburn, Jonathan; Wright, Gerald C. (2012). "The Gerrymanderers Are Coming! Legislative Redistricting Won't Affect Competition or Polarization Much, No Matter Who Does It". PS: Political Science & Politics. 45 (1): 39–43. doi:10.1017/S1049096511001703.
37. ^ "Demographic Profiles of Trump and Harris Voters in 2024". Pew Research Center. June 26, 2025. Retrieved October 13, 2025.
38. ^ "How Key Groups of Americans Voted in 2024". PBS. November 2024. Retrieved October 13, 2025.
39. ^ Krupnikov, Yanna; Ryan, John Barry (2022). The Other Divide. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-1-108-83112-3.
40. ^ Madison, James (November 23, 1787). The Federalist No. 10. New York Packet. Retrieved October 13, 2025.
41. ^ a b Haidt, Jonathan (2012). The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion. Vintage Books. ISBN 978-0307455772.
42. ^ Gidron, Noam; Adams, James; Horne, Will (2020). American Affective Polarization in Comparative Perspective. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 9781108914123.