The pitfalls of a polarized nation
Class consciousness can mend the severe divide between the left and the right
Polarization prevails as a driving force against class solidarity.
The competitive and isolating nature of capitalism has sunk its teeth into a plethora of societal structures, making polarization a key principle of America’s hyper-individualistic society that promotes contention over community.
This sense of competition has unfortunately bled into the realm of politics. It tarnishes healthy democracies by presenting opposing sides as political rivals to be defeated rather than negotiated with. Jennifer McCoy explains this growing sentiment of “If you win, I lose” in her article for the International Catalan Institute for Peace.
McCoy asserts the role of national identity and citizenship rights in exacerbating this division. She notes the growth in US polarization began in the aftermath of the 1960s civil rights movement and the 1970s women’s movement. Currently, polarization operates by rewarding extreme positions, making it difficult—both psychologically and socially—for individuals to reverse their views once they are set in place.
In characterizing political parties as strict opponents, politicians instill a sense of “otherness” into their party’s members and supporters. These antagonistic depictions urge loyalty and devotion to one side, while encouraging distance from and suspicion of the other. Not only does this contribute to rising tensions among populations, but it enables the use of violence for political purposes by dehumanizing opposing political figures and curating a sense of moral superiority.
Political ideologies, however, are not as narrow as the existing parties. As public opinion analyst David Coletto notes in his study on Canadian voters for Abacus Data, public opinion is fluid and complex. In addition to shifting with changing circumstances, it is built upon a range of social, cultural and institutional elements. As such, political parties are not representative of the dynamic values, needs and concerns of different communities. Presenting them as polarizing entities whose policies are mutually exclusive deters the potential for collaboration and coexistence.
Polarization has historically been used as a tool to isolate individuals from their communities in an attempt to mitigate class unity and uprisings. This artificial sense of alienation has promoted a lack of solidarity among workers since the start of industrialization. Karl Marx famously notes in his “Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844” that constant, monotonous labour, over which workers have no creative control, isolates people from themselves and each other.
Workplaces harbour competition among employees and push an association between self-worth and profitable merits. As these sentiments hold intellectual and emotional consequences, it is important to consider political divides from a psychological standpoint.
Community outreach manager Kirk Waldroff explains in an article for the American Psychological Association that existential fear sits at the heart of polarization, and that political parties perpetuate this with distorted perceptions. He explores the potential harms in making ideological assumptions based on votes, and encourages curiosity and open-mindedness towards those with opposing political views.
The current political state of the US has driven many of its citizens to voice their dissent for the Trump administration. Some remark that its policies favour the extremely wealthy over everyone else, making the skewed priorities of this administration clear. The extreme wealth of Trump’s cabinet also raises significant concerns, with several billionaires holding powerful positions.
A political leader’s economic background undoubtedly influences their style of governance, as wealthier lawmakers often push for policies that oblige the interests of businesses and other wealthy individuals. With an entire federal administration consisting of a single economic standpoint, many fear the dysfunctional oligarchic takeover that seems to be taking place.
In response to the rapidly expanding power of affluent figures in the US, political standpoints ranging from left to right have found common ground in disregarding the average person’s vulnerability at the hands of the 1 per cent.
Writing for the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Rachel Kleinfeld explains that Americans are not as ideologically polarized as they think, but rather are emotionally or affectively polarized. Kleinfeld says this is largely driven by misconceptions of the opposing party and their policies, as well as misunderstandings about their demographic compositions— something that Trump and his administration have routinely promoted.
In an NBC News article, senior reporter Jane C. Timm outlines the countless alarming fallacies used throughout Trump’s presidential campaigns to discredit or demean his political opponents. His insolent use of sophisms furthers the belief that Americans are deeply polarized.
However, research published by Matthew S. Levendusky and Neil Malhotra in Public Opinion Quarterly indicates that this can be remedied. Their results show that demonstrating how individuals share policy values and demographics, as well as fostering a sense of collective identity and solidarity, are measures that can be taken to lessen affective polarization.
As the realization that we have more in common with each other than with billionaires persists, the long-standing polarization of the US seems to be faltering. The public’s priorities seem to be shifting away from broader bureaucratic loyalties towards local perseverance, paving the way for increased class consciousness and highlighting the importance of solidarity in assembling and protecting our communities.
