Politics has been increasingly receiving more attention and focus now than it ever has before, being shoved into the spotlight in the daily lives. With the recent 2024 Harris/Trump election, and arguably even back into the late twentieth century, there has been a lot of power, discussion, and drama surrounding politics.
Robert Putnam, the Peter and Isabel Malkin Professor of Public Policy at Harvard University and renowned political scientist, says “[n]ow is probably the most politically polarized period in American history, with the exception of a period between 1860 and 1865. That’s how close we are to a civil war.”
There’s no definitive way to figure out when the polarization began, but that’s only because it’s an amorphous thing; it doesn’t just happen, it creeps in due to the actions of an untraceable, unknowable number of people. It’s a kind of social virus that slowly infiltrates people’s relationships, the media, institutions. Rampant disagreements, slash campaigns against candidates and social movements, groups of people wanting the same result being pitted against each other, distrust on where to receive accurate information, echo chambers and confirmation biases – the political landscape as it’s known today has been transformed into a warzone. And nobody’s safe in the middle of a battlefield.
During a survey conducted from Monday, March 24th to Tuesday, March 26th available to all UW-Green Bay students, respondents answered the question “What is your opinion on the tension, turmoil, and division that is rampant in the current political climate?” in as many words or whatever format as they so chose. The surveyed took this as an opportunity to speak on their fears, frustrations, and feelings regarding that political climate. Example statements include:
I feel many of the issues we are facing require us to be united, but we are more divided than ever.
It is making people unsympathetic, and leading them to only worry about themselves.
I am appalled. I am disgusted… My country has failed me and I have absolutely no idea what the future will hold… I’m angry. I’m tired.
People’s go-to is violence and fighting, and that gets us nowhere but into a deeper hole that we can’t get out of.”
I am exhausted and wish everything was more peaceful.
Experts at the Institute for Integrated Transitions (IFIT), a multinational non-governmental organization that leads worldwide peace projects, define polarization as “]a prominent division or conflict that forms between major groups in a society or political system and that is marked by the clustering and radicalization of views and beliefs at two distant and antagonistic poles.” Except those two poles aren’t naturally occurring – they’ve been socially formed and divided from each other over the course of decades.
This animosity has been occurring for some time now. According to the World Happiness Report (WHR), in the 1970s 50% of American adults believe that ‘most people can be trusted’ while today that percentage has dropped to 30%. Graphs from Inequality.org, the Fiscal Studies, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, and others, show various economic disparities on a constant incline consistent with the data from the WHR. These economic disparities then caused a push for change from both ‘sides,’ and many higher-ups in the political field scapegoated powers on the other end of the perceived spectrum; and for years this occurrence has become increasingly common. Even an article published by the Pew Research Center in 2014 observes this phenomenon – and it only appears to be getting worse.
When there are hundreds of articles and segments on news channels and websites that appear to be convinced that they are one of few trustworthy sources, when there are political candidates that seem focused on winning elections at any cost, when both of the main parties in our democratic system tell their demographics that they’re the good guys, they care about the working class, they will fix everything – and then nothing changes – what other reaction was expected of the American public? When there are incomprehensibly large parties at play, trying to pit one group against another, what else could possibly occur besides their success in just that?
Professor Aaron Weinschenk is the Director of the Social Sciences and Public Policy domain and the Ben J. and Joyce Rosenberg Professor of Political Science here at UW-Green Bay. He has published nearly 50 peer-reviewed articles, a book on elections, and studies political and voting behavior, political psychology, and campaigns. In an interview, on the rising political tensions in recent years, he said “There’s this real intolerance, I think… People almost shut down conversation, or turn off the program (when they hear) [a]ny idea that they don’t like.” He goes on to say that for many people, their focus isn’t about listening, but about saying their piece; essentially, the only care going to proving themselves right.
Now, when discussing this topic, it’s easy to observe negative phenomena occurring among the public. A lack of listening, a lack of research… that’s not to say that everybody does it, that’s not to say that everybody is doing something wrong. However, enough people are doing enough things so that the negative impacts of their decisions are national, even international. It’s even easier to get defensive toward a text such as this one, to feel like you’re being accused of something; but that’s not the goal. The aim is not to discuss the negative things, but to clarify the changes that need to happen to improve the situation – for everyone. There’s no partial reward to the abolishment of this issue.
So, what needs to happen – that’s the question. Well, there are three main things that could definitely help, even though there’s no set solution.
Firstly, listening to and understanding others must become more common. Professor Weinschenk especially emphasizes the importance of this idea; “I think that’s probably the best thing to do, to listen to things that you don’t agree with or talk to people you don’t agree with.” How can you defend or support your ideas if you don’t understand those of your opponents? Understanding why they hold that position is also instrumental, and having grace with them because of that. Professor Weinschenk, while discussing the dichotomy between political parties, stated “We’re almost too wrapped up in our ideological identities that we’re missing opportunities to talk… you can be civil with a person who holds very different views… There’s probably some logic, or some feeling, or some experience, behind it.” You can hold your views, you can do whatever it is, be it peaceful protest, advocating, or empowerment, all in attempts to enact change, but it is not your responsibility to change the minds of others; not your problem if others aren’t living life the way you do; it’s within your control to not get upset when someone doesn’t agree with you, be it them not supporting your livelihood or them not agreeing with you economic opinions; you have the ability to keep your composure even if someone else chooses not to.
Just as important is doing research, which includes breaking free of echo chambers and overcoming confirmation biases. Professor Weinschenk’s input to this topic is very realistic: “[I]t’s very hard to do, but you have to be intentional about it.” The media has essentially set the American population up for failure; Weinschenk observes “you can just go to any media outlet that you like. You can just pick the one that aligns with you best.” There is a lot of fluff, and it’s very easy to get caught up in echo chambers, which occur when you read information or socialize in groups where the only ideas discussed or written align with yours, causing all of them to amplify, as well as confirmation bias, which occur when you do research if you ignore, discredit, or attack opposing sources to whatever you are trying to prove. Professor Weinschenk’s method to deal with this is to engage across divides. “If you have the most progressive views, read some conservative newspapers or articles, right? Be intentional about exposing yourself to other ideas.” “I sometimes go to events for politicians that I don’t necessarily agree with… how could you learn anything if you never read anything or hear anything from other points of view?” He goes out of his way to say that even highly educated connections of his fall into that trap. Checking to see if two, three, four other sources all say the same thing is an excellent way of ensuring accuracy. But, back to Professor Weinschenk’s statement – it has to be intentional.
The final and most effective step toward addressing political polarization is the recognition of our shared goal. At the core, everyone wants what is best for the United States, even if our paths to achieving that vision differ. While disparities will emerge on issues like immigration and foreign affairs, the greater good remains a unifying aspiration. While this unites us, the diverse perspectives on how to achieve it often create conflict, making compromise an essential component of progress. As Professor Weinschenk noted, ‘It’s important for people to think about what they’re willing to compromise on while trying to achieve some goal or outcome. We can’t expect other people or groups to compromise if we aren’t willing to compromise ourselves.’ This reflection emphasizes that progress is only possible when individuals and groups approach dialogue with flexibility and a readiness to work toward common ground.
It must be remembered that the current government was built on ideals of enlightenment, balancing individual rights for the common good. Officials are elected who will best lead in the way that the greater population of America wants while maintaining equal liberties and justice for all – but as time has passed, politics and government have become fields of drama, misinformation, greed, ignorance, and cruelty. It’s the decision of every individual to either choose to behave similarly, or rise above.
Works Cited
Ghazi, Sahar Habib. “Can We Reduce Political Antagonism by Promoting Trust?” Greater Good, Greater Good Magazine, 24 Mar. 2024.
Hardy, Brady L., et al. “Income Inequality in the United States, 1975–2022.” Wiley Online Library, Fiscal Studies: The Journal of Applied Public Economics, 28 June 2024.
“Income Inequality.” Inequality.Org, Inequality.org.
Mac-Ikemenjima, Dabesaki, and Shireen Zaman. “Closing the Divide: Inside Our Global Initiative on Polarization.” Ford Foundation, The Ford Foundation, 29 May 2024.
Sherman, Arloc, et al. “A Guide to Statistics on Historical Trends in Income Inequality.” The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 11 Dec. 2024.
Simon, Clea. “Want a Less Divisive American? Just a Matter of Trust.” Harvard Gazette, The Harvard Gazette, 14 Mar. 2025.