Why polarization is good

With Barack Obama in the White House, partisan antipathy is more pronounced among Republicans, especially consistently conservative Republicans. Conservatives also exhibit more partisan behavior in their personal lives; they are the most likely to have friends and prefer communities of like-minded people.

However, there is as much ideological uniformity on the left as the right. Social issues like homosexuality and immigration that once drove deep divides within the Democratic Party are now areas of relative consensus. And Democrats have become more uniformly critical of business and more supportive of government. Changes in ideological consistency on the right have followed a different course. This increase has come despite more moderate views among Republicans on issues like homosexuality and immigration, as GOP thinking on issues related to government and the economy has veered sharply to the right.

This is the first report of a multi-part series based on a national survey of 10, adults nationwide, conducted January March 16, by the Pew Research Center. MacArthur Foundation and supported by the generosity of Don C. The typology — the sixth such study since — looks beyond Red vs. Later, the project will explore the various factors that contribute to political polarization, or stem from it.

Other reports will look at how political polarization relates to where people live, to their political environments, to how they view themselves and others around them, to their socioeconomic circumstances, to generational changes and to broader sociological and psychological personality traits.

The current report is divided into five parts: The first two focus on measuring the nature and scope of political polarization, emphasizing the difference between growing ideological consistency and rising partisan antipathy. The fourth looks at the relationship between polarization and practical policymaking , and the fifth digs deeper into how political participation both amplifies and reflects polarization.

The data in this report are based on two independent survey administrations with the same randomly selected, nationally representative group of respondents. The second involved impaneling a subset of these respondents into the newly created American Trends Panel and following up with them via a survey conducted by web and telephone. The two surveys are described separately, in further detail, in the About the Surveys section of the report.

In times of uncertainty, good decisions demand good data. Please support our research with a financial contribution. It organizes the public into nine distinct groups, based on an analysis of their attitudes and values. Even in a polarized era, the survey reveals deep divisions in both partisan coalitions. Use this tool to compare the groups on some key topics and their demographics.

Pew Research Center now uses as the last birth year for Millennials in our work. President Michael Dimock explains why. About Pew Research Center Pew Research Center is a nonpartisan fact tank that informs the public about the issues, attitudes and trends shaping the world. It conducts public opinion polling, demographic research, media content analysis and other empirical social science research.

As citizens, we would benefit from the same mindset shift: from an idealistic politics of truth, collaboration, and middle-paths to a politics of power. We should embrace polarization and the new attitudes and political strategies that come with it.

If we are engaging with the right politically, it is to bring them to our side. Can you get your relative in a swing state to change their vote? Encourage a friend to understand their hidden biases and confront them? Get your friend to shut up about the pitfalls of polarization?

As Harvard students, we should reject the idea that Harvard would benefit from artificially balancing its political bent with more conservative faculty whose views are a minority in academia for a reason. Doing so would empower the right and give it undeserved legitimacy through the Harvard brand. Have a suggestion, question, or concern for The Crimson Editorial Board? Click here. Want to keep up with breaking news?

Subscribe to our email newsletter. Contrast the past political situation described above with that of today. It would be extremely difficult to argue, for example, that party affiliation is not a signal to voters.

In fact, precisely the opposite now appears to be the case: roll-call votes in Congress are very clearly divided on partisan lines. This change is a result of increasing political polarization. In other words, when you vote for a candidate, you are likely to have a relatively good understanding of what their positions are, simply by looking at the D or R next to their name, making the impact of your vote more tangible.

It is reasonable to view these developments with a healthy amount of suspicion. Why would we want intensified ideological conflict in Congress?

It certainly seems that polarization, and the consequent ideological divide between the parties, may have made it harder for politicians to cooperate. In fact, polarization has been cited as the cause of problems ranging from incivility , to legislative gridlock , to the breakdown of democracy itself. However, these fears are misplaced.

In reality, divisions have made political stances more important, so voters are encouraged to think about where they stand on these issues and express these views to combat a perceived lack of government action. More people are engaging in politics in some form: according to one survey , almost one quarter of Americans have contacted an elected official in the last year alone. This uptick in strong, opposing opinions may seem frustrating in the short term. Yet, we must remember that pluralism is fundamentally good for democracy.

Clearly defined party ideologies have made the stakes more palpable than any time in recent memory. Polarization does bring its set of issues — issues like gridlock, that can only last for so long until one side gains more power — but it is also extremely effective at combating one of problems plaguing American democracy: apathy.

Nevertheless, the fact remains that party identification clearly signals ideological affinity to voters. The midterms illustrate this clearly. Democrats took control of the House because they offered the millions of voters who disliked Trump a clear ideological distinction from the president, unlike other Republicans who merely differed from him in background.

One of the reasons we actually need substantive disagreement of the sort produced by polarization is because it is easier now than ever before to have a myopic focus on candidates instead of issues. The inescapability of modern media makes our political system run the very real risk of becoming too candidate-centered once again.

Twitter and Facebook can allow political conversations to veer into completely irrelevant territory at best, and spread completely false information at worst. Of course, although it is clear that candidate-centered politics are undesirable, one might also be averse to party-centered politics.