Is political polarization worse than it's been in the past?

Both sidesSays it is contested

The question of whether political polarization is worse today than in the past depends entirely on which past you are comparing it to and how you measure it.

If you compare today to the mid-to-late 20th century, the answer is a definitive yes. However, if you look at the broader sweep of American history—including the Civil War, the Gilded Age, or the founding of the republic—the answer is more nuanced.

1. Why Polarization is Worse Today (Compared to the Mid-20th Century)

For anyone who lived through the decades following World War II, today’s political environment feels unprecedentedly hostile. This is because the mid-20th century was an anomaly of political consensus, and several factors have dramatically worsened polarization since then:

•The Disappearance of the "Big Tent" (Party Sorting): In the 1950s and 1960s, both major parties were highly diverse. The Democratic Party contained both progressive Northern liberals and highly conservative Southern segregationists. The Republican Party had both conservative Midwesterners and liberal Northeasterners. Because of this overlap, bipartisan coalitions were common. Over the last 50 years, the parties have "sorted". Today, almost all liberals are Democrats and almost all conservatives are Republicans.

•Affective Polarization: Political scientists distinguish between ideological polarization (disagreeing on policy) and affective polarization (actively disliking and distrusting the other side). Research shows that affective polarization has skyrocketed. Voters do not just disagree with the opposing party; they increasingly view them as "immoral," "dishonest," and a threat to the nation. In the 1960s, only about 5% of Americans said they would be displeased if their child married someone from the opposite political party; by the 2010s and 2020s, that number had jumped to upwards of 35% to 50%.

•Asymmetric and Elite Polarization: Political science metrics like DW-NOMINATE (which tracks congressional roll-call votes) show that the gap between the average Democrat and Republican in Congress is wider today than at any point since Reconstruction. Researchers point out that this has been somewhat asymmetric, with Republicans in Congress shifting further to the right over the last few decades, while the public has seen significant leftward shifts on social issues (particularly among Democrats since 2008).

•The Media and Technology Echo Chamber: The shift from a few centralized broadcast networks to highly fragmented cable news, talk radio, and social media algorithms has allowed Americans to consume entirely different versions of reality. Algorithms reward outrage, making polarization highly profitable for media companies and politically advantageous for politicians.

2. Why Today’s Polarization is Not Unprecedented

While today’s divisions are the worst in modern memory, American history features several periods where polarization was equal to, or far worse than, what we see today:

•The Civil War (1861–1865): This is the ultimate benchmark of American polarization. Disagreement over slavery and state sovereignty completely fractured the country, leading to the secession of 11 states and a war that claimed the lives of an estimated 620,000 Americans. Our current polarization has caused political dysfunction and civil unrest, but it has not resulted in a military conflict of that scale.

•The Early Republic (1790s–1800s): The founding generation was bitterly, viciously divided. The Federalists (led by Alexander Hamilton and John Adams) and the Democratic-Republicans (led by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison) believed the other faction would literally destroy the newly formed country. The press of that era was openly partisan and incredibly venomous. Politicians routinely fought duels (most famously Aaron Burr killing Alexander Hamilton), and the Adams administration went so far as to pass the Alien and Sedition Acts to criminalize criticism of the government.

•Reconstruction and the Gilded Age (Late 19th Century): According to DW-NOMINATE data, the polarization of Congress in the late 1800s matched the extreme levels we see today. The nation was deeply divided geographically and economically, and the period was marked by rampant political corruption, institutional warfare, and contested presidential elections (such as the election of 1876, which nearly restarted the Civil War).

•The 1960s and early 1970s: Though the political parties themselves were not as ideologically sorted as they are today, societal polarization was incredibly violent. The country was torn apart by the Vietnam War, the civil rights movement, and the counterculture. This period saw the assassinations of John F. Kennedy, Martin Luther King Jr., and Robert F. Kennedy, alongside widespread bombings by domestic extremist groups, race riots in major cities, and violent clashes between police and protestors.

Conclusion

Is political polarization worse than in the past?

•Compared to the post-World War II era (1945–1980), yes. We are living through a historic peak of partisan sorting and mutual animosity.

•Compared to the mid-19th century or the late-18th century, no. The U.S. has survived periods of physical warfare, systemic political violence, and constitutional crises that dwarf our current struggles.

The unique challenge of modern polarization is that the U.S. Constitution was designed around a system of checks and balances that requires compromise to function. Because the parties are now so thoroughly sorted and affectively polarized, that compromise has become incredibly difficult, leading to chronic gridlock and a widespread feeling that the system is broken.

Citations (13)

1usc.eduAcademic
usc.edu
Backs: “The question of whether political polarization is worse today than in the past depends entirely on which past you are comparing it to and how you measure it.”
background, other, neutral. Claim: Whether polarization is worse today depends on which past period is compared and how it is measured.
2democracyproject.orgNonprofits and think tanks
democracyproject.org
Backs: “The question of whether political polarization is worse today than in the past depends entirely on which past you are comparing it to and how you measure it.”
background, other, neutral. Claim: Whether polarization is worse today depends on which past period is compared and how it is measured.
3facinghistory.orgNonprofits and think tanks
facinghistory.org
Backs: “If you compare today to the mid-to-late 20th century, the answer is a definitive yes.”
evidence, other, points to yes. Claim: Compared with the mid-to-late 20th century, polarization today is definitively worse.
4wikipedia.orgEncyclopedias and referencequality 0.83
wikipedia.org
Backs: “If you compare today to the mid-to-late 20th century, the answer is a definitive yes.”
evidence, reference entry, points to yes. Claim: Compared with the mid-to-late 20th century, polarization today is definitively worse.
5econlib.orgEncyclopedias and reference
econlib.org
Backs: “The Disappearance of the "Big Tent" (Party Sorting): In the 1950s and 1960s, both major parties were highly diverse. The Democratic Party contained both progressive Northern liberals and highly conservative Southern segregationists.”
evidence, other, points to yes. Claim: In the 1950s and 1960s both parties were ideologically diverse big tents.
6pewresearch.orgNonprofits and think tanks
pewresearch.org
Backs: “The Democratic Party contained both progressive Northern liberals and highly conservative Southern segregationists. The Republican Party had both conservative Midwesterners and liberal Northeasterners.”
evidence, other, points to yes. Claim: Democrats once included Northern liberals and Southern segregationists; parties have since sorted.
7voteview.comAcademic
voteview.com
Backs: “Over the last 50 years, the parties have "sorted". Today, almost all liberals are Democrats and almost all conservatives are Republicans.”
evidence, data page, points to yes. Claim: Parties have sorted over 50 years; congressional polarization measured by DW-NOMINATE is at historic highs.
8brown.eduAcademic
brown.edu
Backs: “Affective Polarization: Political scientists distinguish between ideological polarization (disagreeing on policy) and affective polarization (actively disliking and distrusting the other side). Research shows that affective polarization has skyrocketed.”
evidence, other, points to yes. Claim: Affective polarization differs from ideological polarization and has risen sharply.
9syr.eduAcademic
syr.edu
Backs: “Voters do not just disagree with the opposing party; they increasingly view them as "immoral," "dishonest," and a threat to the nation. In the 1960s, only about 5% of Americans said they would be displeased if their child married someone from the opposite political party; by the 2010s and 2020s, that number had jumped…”
evidence, other, points to yes. Claim: Voters increasingly view the opposing party as immoral, dishonest, and a threat to the nation.
10wikipedia.orgEncyclopedias and referencequality 0.83
wikipedia.org
Backs: “In the 1960s, only about 5% of Americans said they would be displeased if their child married someone from the opposite political party; by the 2010s and 2020s, that number had jumped to upwards of 35% to 50%. Asymmetric and Elite Polarization: Political science metrics like DW-NOMINATE (which tracks congressional…”
statistic, reference entry, points to yes. Claim: Share displeased by child marrying across party lines rose from about 5% in the 1960s to 35-50% recently.
11cam.ac.ukAcademic
cam.ac.uk
Backs: “Researchers point out that this has been somewhat asymmetric, with Republicans in Congress shifting further to the right over the last few decades, while the public has seen significant leftward shifts on social issues (particularly among Democrats since 2008). The Media and Technology Echo Chamber: The shift from a…”
evidence, other, points to yes. Claim: Congressional polarization has been asymmetric, with Republicans shifting right and the public shifting left on social issues.
12loc.govGovernment
loc.gov
Backs: “The 1960s and early 1970s: Though the political parties themselves were not as ideologically sorted as they are today, societal polarization was incredibly violent. The country was torn apart by the Vietnam War, the civil rights movement, and the counterculture.”
evidence, other, points to no. Claim: 1960s and early 1970s saw violent societal polarization including assassinations, riots, and bombings.
13wpmucdn.comNot yet classified
wpmucdn.com
Backs: “Compared to the mid-19th century or the late-18th century, no. The U.S. has survived periods of physical warfare, systemic political violence, and constitutional crises that dwarf our current struggles.”
evidence, other, points to no. Claim: Compared with the 19th or 18th century, the U.S. survived worse warfare, violence, and constitutional crises.