Echoes of Division: Understanding Polarization in the State

Written by Nicole Patel, Edited by Gabrielle Cohen
Nicole Patel is a first-year student at the University of Pennsylvania’s College of Arts and Sciences studying Philosophy, Politics, and Economics.

Over 200 years ago, George Washington —America’s founding father and creator of the Farewell Address—warned Americans against the dangers of forming political parties. Yet, despite his admonition, society has moved far from ideals of unity in political discourse and compromise, drifting instead toward exacerbated polarization. However, this divide does not just affect discourse, but also media consumption, community cohesion, and the productive passage of essential legislation

Political parties have existed for hundreds of years, so why has polarization increased so drastically in today’s status quo? The rise of partisanship can be tied back to several historical developments. Between the 1890s and the 2000s, the realignment of political parties solidified beliefs and stunted diverse discourse [1].  Factors like geographical location, economic changes, and social rights movements reshaped the way major political parties positioned themselves on key issues. Over time, individuals began associating with political parties both ideologically and emotionally. As a result, political parties have come to represent a means of expressing one’s identity, fostering a deep personal attachment among citizens.

Understanding polarization requires examining its root causes. In the past few decades, major news outlets have greatly exacerbated polarization. The proliferation of media outlets has created echo chambers in which individuals receive information that reinforces their own ideals. Platforms such as Facebook have specific algorithms that analyze user behavior and deliver content that closely resembles individuals’ preferences, creating a feedback loop that limits exposure to diverse political perspectives. NPR found that, on average, about half of the posts seen by users originate from like-minded sources, and around three-quarters of posts come from ideologically aligned sources. Their study also finds that the algorithm is more favored towards targeting the extremes of the left and the right [2]. The constant stream of information that reinforces one’s preconceived notions prevents users from understanding and adopting new ideals. Algorithms like Facebook’s apply to other major platforms such as Instagram and web searchers alike, posing a serious threat to political diversity.

Arguably one of the most polarizing platforms is not social media, but rather major news outlets. Americans consume news from television five times more frequently than from online or print outlets [3]. The problem lies in how these news sources convey information to the masses. An analysis shows that CNN and Fox News communicate the same topics very differently. When discussing racism, CNN has employed words such as “protests,” while Fox News has used terms like “crime” [4]. In turn, this discrepancy in language leads audiences to frame issues based on their preferred sources, understanding protests as either civic expression or violence. While local news sources once presented relatively unbiased information, major outlets have formed a “monopoly,” allowing them to expel slanted reporting. The popularization of certain telecasting news services has further intensified this divide. The 24-hour news cycle has transformed news reporting into recycled hot takes to rack up viewership rates by appealing to specific audiences. In turn, Americans of certain political parties are more likely to look at news channels that correspond most with their ideals. 

The media, however, is nothing without the message. Often, polarization is heightened because of the spread of political rhetoric. Category-referring phrases, used especially during elections, encourage the adoption of broad conclusions about political categories. Statements such as “Democrats will defund the police” or “Republicans are anti-environmentalists” create harmful stereotypes that oversimplify complex issues. They foster misunderstanding and resentment between the groups, contributing to a gaping divide. For example, surveyed respondents estimated that 38% of Democrats were union members while only 10% were, and that Republicans earned over $250,000 a year while only 2% did [5]. The exaggerated perceptions of parties reinforce harmful political rhetoric. 

However, the implications of polarization lie far beyond the scope of mere civilians. Political extremism significantly impacts governance and societal stability. Increased polarization has led to severe gridlock in Congress, limiting cooperation between political parties and slowing the passage of legislation as congress members struggle to reach compromise. In 2023, the U.S. House of Representatives conducted more than 700 votes, yet only 30 bills were signed into law [6]. In contrast, 713 laws were passed by Congress from 1987-88 [7]. This dysfunction has prevented Congress from addressing pressing issues such as healthcare, climate change, and social equity. It is disheartening that millions of Americans continue to suffer from lack of access to medical care, impoverished conditions, and the effects of a deteriorating planet because of a lack of bipartisan support and compromise.

The long term effects of this phenomenon harm the very foundations of democracy, particularly the legislative process. The laws that are or are not enacted are often dictated by partisan views. In the past year, the Supreme Court has experienced escalating tensions. With six conservative justices appointed by Republican presidents and three liberal justices appointed by Democratic presidents, 21% of their votes this year aligned with their ideological lines [8]. While the court is intended to be apolitical, its appointments have become increasingly partisan. The Republican majority was achieved by preventing nominations from being held during Obama’s presidency. This allowed President Trump to elect three justices with conservative viewpoints. The cost is a more polarized court, which takes partisan stances on cases, such as Roe v. Wade.

When political differences become fault lines that fracture our capacity for compassion and compromise, it is not just policies that suffer, but real people—our neighbors and our friends. The rise of an “us versus them” mindset hinders our ability to grow as a nation. As the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace explains, “studies have already shown that pernicious polarization is directly linked with democratic erosion” [9]. Thus, government supporters become more likely to tolerate illiberal practices within government institutions, while opposition groups resort to undemocratic means to express their resistance. This divisive gap harms the foundations of democracy as the lines between right and wrong become blurred. Illustrating this divide, Pew Research finds that 36% of the Republican Party and 27% of the Democratic Party view their rival party as a threat to the nation [10]. Not only does this undermine national unity, but it also spreads harmful rhetoric about opposing parties throughout the nation.

The ambiguity of the future begs the question: how can society find unity? Fostering open dialogue and reminding individuals of the same human qualities that we all possess is the first step. While a diverse society is inevitable, a divisive one is not.

Bibliography
[1] James E. Campbell, Part Systems and Realignment, 2006. https://www.acsu.buffalo.edu/~jcampbel/documents/SSHRealignment06.pdf
[2] Huo Jingnan et al., Facebook and Political Bubbles, 2023. https://www.npr.org/2023/07/27/1190383104/new-study-shows-just-how-facebooks-algorithm-shapes-conservative-and-liberal-bub
[3] Tonia Maxley, Networks and Issues, 2023. https://news.vt.edu/articles/2023/08/eng-cs-two-networks--two-realities--one-big-problem.html
[4] Tonia Maxley, Networks and Issues, 2023. https://news.vt.edu/articles/2023/08/eng-cs-two-networks--two-realities--one-big-problem.html
[5] Gustavo Novoa, Polarization and Communication, 2023. https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2309361120
[6] Francisco Tutella, Polarization and Legislation, 2024. https://www.psu.edu/news/research/story/political-polarization-may-slow-legislation-make-higher-stakes-laws-likelier
[7] Moira Warburton, Congress and Unproductivity, 2024.
https://www.reuters.com/graphics/USA-CONGRESS/PRODUCTIVITY/egpbabmkwvq/
[8] Nadine El-Bawab, Supreme Court and Polarization, 2022.
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/supreme-court-polarized/story?id=90598910
[9] Jennifer McCoy and Benjamin Press, Democracies and Polarization, 2022. https://carnegieendowment.org/research/2022/01/what-happens-when-democracies-become-perniciously-polarized?lang=en
[10] PEW, Polarization in the Public, 2014. https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2014/06/12/political-polarization-in-the-american-public/

The opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions of the designated authors and do not reflect the opinions or views of the Penn Undergraduate Law Journal, our staff, or our clients.