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

Whether political polarization is "worse than it has been in the past" depends heavily on how polarization is defined and which historical eras are used as a comparison.

Political scientists generally divide polarization into two types: ideological polarization (how far apart political stances and policy goals are) and affective polarization (the level of mutual dislike, distrust, and hostility between opposing political groups).

An analysis of how current polarization compares to different periods in American history reveals a nuanced picture.

Yes: It is the Worst It Has Been in Modern History (Post-WWII)

If you compare today’s political landscape to the mid-to-late 20th century, polarization is undeniably at an all-time high.

•The Disappearance of the Political Middle: In the 1950s through the 1970s, the U.S. political parties had massive overlapping circles. There were conservative Southern Democrats and liberal Northeast Republicans. Today, that ideological overlap has virtually vanished. According to the standard political science metric used to measure legislative voting patterns (DW-NOMINATE), members of Congress are more ideologically divided along party lines today than at any point since the Reconstruction Era (the late 1870s).

•Skyrocketing Partisan Animosity: Affective polarization among regular citizens has intensified rapidly. In 1994, the percentage of Americans holding "consistently" liberal or conservative views was about 10%; by 2014, that number had more than doubled. Furthermore, Pew Research Center data shows that in 2022, 72% of Republicans and 63% of Democrats viewed the opposing party as "more immoral" than other Americans—a sharp increase from 47% and 35% respectively in 2016.

•The U.S. is an International Outlier: A landmark study from researchers at Brown and Stanford found that while political polarization has risen in several Western democracies (like Canada and New Zealand) over the past 40 years, it has increased much faster and more severely in the United States than in any other comparable democracy.

•The 2008 Turning Point: A 2026 study by the University of Cambridge’s Political Psychology Lab tracking divisions on social and political issues since 1988 found that polarization in the U.S. public remained relatively flat during the 1990s and early 2000s, but surged by 64% after 2008 (the year of the financial crisis and Barack Obama's election).

No: It is Not the Worst in All of U.S. History

When taking a longer, multi-century view of American history, our current divisions—while severe—are not entirely unprecedented. In fact, many historians argue that the "bipartisan consensus" of the mid-20th century was actually the historical anomaly, not the norm.

•The Civil War Era (1850s–1860s): This remains the ultimate benchmark for polarization in the United States. During this era, ideological and geographic divisions over slavery and state sovereignty became so absolute that they resulted in a hot civil war, the secession of 11 states, and the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Americans. While today's political rhetoric is highly charged, it has not resulted in a national armed conflict.

•The Reconstruction Era and the Gilded Age (1870s–1890s): Following the Civil War, the country remained intensely divided. The 1870s and 1880s featured massive battles over civil rights, currency, and labor. Political gridlock was common, and elections were frequently contested or accompanied by physical violence at polling places.

•The Founding Era (1790s): The very first decade under the U.S. Constitution featured venomous political warfare. The Federalist Party (led by Alexander Hamilton) and the Democratic-Republican Party (led by Thomas Jefferson) viewed one another as existential threats to the survival of the republic. Partisan newspapers printed outright lies, politicians routinely impugned their rivals' patriotism, and political disputes sometimes culminated in literal duels (most famously between Alexander Hamilton and Aaron Burr).

The Nuance: Elites vs. The General Public

Political scientists point out an important distinction between the polarization of political "elites" (politicians, media figures, and highly active party donors) and ordinary citizens.

While politicians and media outlets have moved sharply to the extremes, a large portion of the American public still holds relatively moderate, nuanced views on many policy issues. However, regular citizens are deeply affected by negative partisanship—the tendency to vote for a candidate not because they love their platform, but because they fear or despise the opposing party. Because of this, public perception of division is often worse than actual policy disagreement; voters tend to mistakenly assume that ordinary supporters of the other party hold the exact same extreme views as that party's most vocal political leaders.

Conclusion

Is political polarization worse than it has been in the past?

•If your frame of reference is living memory (the last 50 to 70 years), the answer is a resounding yes. Congress is more divided, the public is more hostile toward the opposing party, and bipartisan compromise is harder to achieve than at any point since World War II.

•If your frame of reference is the entirety of American history, the answer is no. The U.S. has navigated similarly perilous periods of polarization before, most notably the decades surrounding the Civil War, which featured deep moral divides that successfully fractured the nation’s democratic institutions.

Citations (11)

1wikipedia.orgEncyclopedias and referencequality 0.83
wikipedia.org
Backs: “Political scientists generally divide polarization into two types: ideological polarization (how far apart political stances and policy goals are) and affective polarization (the level of mutual dislike, distrust, and hostility between opposing political groups).”
2brown.eduAcademic
brown.edu
Backs: “Political scientists generally divide polarization into two types: ideological polarization (how far apart political stances and policy goals are) and affective polarization (the level of mutual dislike, distrust, and hostility between opposing political groups).”
3usc.eduAcademic
usc.edu
Backs: “The Disappearance of the Political Middle: In the 1950s through the 1970s, the U.S. political parties had massive overlapping circles. There were conservative Southern Democrats and liberal Northeast Republicans.”
4brookings.eduNonprofits and think tanks
brookings.edu
Backs: “The Disappearance of the Political Middle: In the 1950s through the 1970s, the U.S. political parties had massive overlapping circles. There were conservative Southern Democrats and liberal Northeast Republicans.”
5columbialawreview.orgAcademic
columbialawreview.org
Backs: “There were conservative Southern Democrats and liberal Northeast Republicans. Today, that ideological overlap has virtually vanished.”
6usc.eduAcademic
usc.edu
Backs: “According to the standard political science metric used to measure legislative voting patterns (DW-NOMINATE), members of Congress are more ideologically divided along party lines today than at any point since the Reconstruction Era (the late 1870s). Skyrocketing Partisan Animosity: Affective polarization among regular…”
7syr.eduAcademic
syr.edu
Backs: “Furthermore, Pew Research Center data shows that in 2022, 72% of Republicans and 63% of Democrats viewed the opposing party as "more immoral" than other Americans—a sharp increase from 47% and 35% respectively in 2016. The U.S.”
8cam.ac.ukAcademic
cam.ac.uk
Backs: “The 2008 Turning Point: A 2026 study by the University of Cambridge’s Political Psychology Lab tracking divisions on social and political issues since 1988 found that polarization in the U.S. public remained relatively flat during the 1990s and early 2000s, but surged by 64% after 2008 (the year of the financial…”
9brookings.eduNonprofits and think tanks
brookings.edu
Backs: “The Civil War Era (1850s–1860s): This remains the ultimate benchmark for polarization in the United States. During this era, ideological and geographic divisions over slavery and state sovereignty became so absolute that they resulted in a hot civil war, the secession of 11 states, and the deaths of hundreds of…”
10democracyproject.orgNonprofits and think tanks
democracyproject.org
Backs: “During this era, ideological and geographic divisions over slavery and state sovereignty became so absolute that they resulted in a hot civil war, the secession of 11 states, and the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Americans. While today's political rhetoric is highly charged, it has not resulted in a national…”
11syr.eduAcademic
syr.edu
Backs: “However, regular citizens are deeply affected by negative partisanship—the tendency to vote for a candidate not because they love their platform, but because they fear or despise the opposing party. Because of this, public perception of division is often worse than actual policy disagreement; voters tend to mistakenly…”