Is political polarization worse than it's been in the past?
Whether political polarization is "worse" than in the past depends entirely on how "the past" is defined.
If you are comparing today’s political climate to the last 50 to 70 years, the answer is a resounding yes—by almost every metric, partisan division is at its highest point since World War II. However, if you look at the entirety of American history, the answer is no; the nation has survived periods of much deeper, more violent polarization, most notably the Civil War.
Yes: It is worse than in living memory (Post-WWII to Present)
For most Americans alive today, the current level of polarization feels unprecedented because it is the highest it has been in their lifetimes.
1. The Death of Ideological Overlap
In the mid-20th century, the two major political parties were not ideologically pure. The Democratic Party contained conservative Southern "Dixiecrats" alongside Northern liberals, while the Republican Party had a strong moderate-to-liberal wing.
Over the last 50 years, the parties have "sorted" themselves. Conservative Democrats and liberal Republicans have virtually vanished. According to political scientists tracking congressional voting patterns (using DW-NOMINATE scores), the ideological gap between Democrats and Republicans is wider now than at any point in the last half-century. Today, there is almost zero ideological overlap between the most conservative Democrat and the most liberal Republican in Congress.
2. The Rise of "Affective Polarization"
While political scientists distinguish between ideological polarization (disagreeing on policy) and affective polarization (disliking the other side), the latter has skyrocketed. Voters no longer just disagree with their opponents; they actively dislike and distrust them.
3. The U.S. is an International Outlier
A landmark study by researchers at Brown and Stanford universities found that while some countries have experienced mild rises in affective polarization over the past 40 years, the United States has polarized far more rapidly than peer democracies like the UK, Canada, Australia, and Germany (where polarization has actually decreased in some cases).
No: It is not worse than the deeper historical past
While current divisions are severe, they pale in comparison to the absolute systemic breakdowns of the 19th century.
1. The Civil War Era (1850s–1860s)
The 1850s and 1860s represent the absolute peak of American polarization. At that time, polarization was not merely rhetorical; it resulted in:
2. The Gilded Age and Reconstruction (1870s–1890s)
Following the Civil War, the late 19th century was characterized by deep partisan hostility, political violence (particularly surrounding the Jim Crow South), and highly contested presidential elections. The election of 1876 was so intensely disputed and marred by allegations of fraud that it nearly sparked a second civil war before a backroom political compromise was reached.
Like today, the Gilded Age was a time of massive technological disruption, rapid immigration, widening wealth inequality, and close, razor-thin national elections. Political scientists note that the high polarization of the Gilded Age was actually the historical norm; the low-polarization "bipartisan consensus" of the mid-20th century was the anomaly.
Why Today’s Polarization Feels Uniquely Dangerous
Even though we are not in a literal civil war, researchers point out that contemporary polarization has unique characteristics that make it highly volatile:
Summary
If you are comparing today to the 1950s or 1970s, yes, the country is vastly more polarized, hostile, and gridlocked. But if you look at the 1860s or 1870s, the United States has walked a much darker, more violent path of division before—and survived it.
Citations (16)
- stackexchange.com
Backs: “If you are comparing today’s political climate to the last 50 to 70 years, the answer is a resounding yes—by almost every metric, partisan division is at its highest point since World War II. However, if you look at the entirety of American history, the answer is no; the nation has survived periods of much deeper,…”
- syr.edu
Backs: “However, if you look at the entirety of American history, the answer is no; the nation has survived periods of much deeper, more violent polarization, most notably the Civil War.”
- govexec.com
Backs: “However, if you look at the entirety of American history, the answer is no; the nation has survived periods of much deeper, more violent polarization, most notably the Civil War.”
- scholars.org
Backs: “In the mid-20th century, the two major political parties were not ideologically pure. The Democratic Party contained conservative Southern "Dixiecrats" alongside Northern liberals, while the Republican Party had a strong moderate-to-liberal wing.”
- thesocietypages.org
Backs: “The Democratic Party contained conservative Southern "Dixiecrats" alongside Northern liberals, while the Republican Party had a strong moderate-to-liberal wing. Over the last 50 years, the parties have "sorted" themselves.”
- pewresearch.org
Backs: “Conservative Democrats and liberal Republicans have virtually vanished. According to political scientists tracking congressional voting patterns (using DW-NOMINATE scores), the ideological gap between Democrats and Republicans is wider now than at any point in the last half-century.”
- youtube.com
Backs: “While political scientists distinguish between ideological polarization (disagreeing on policy) and affective polarization (disliking the other side), the latter has skyrocketed. Voters no longer just disagree with their opponents; they actively dislike and distrust them.”
- reddit.com
Backs: “While political scientists distinguish between ideological polarization (disagreeing on policy) and affective polarization (disliking the other side), the latter has skyrocketed. Voters no longer just disagree with their opponents; they actively dislike and distrust them.”
- brown.edu
Backs: “Voters no longer just disagree with their opponents; they actively dislike and distrust them. The "Feeling Thermometer": The American National Election Studies (ANES) has long asked voters to rate the opposing party on a warmth scale from 0 to 100.”
- nih.gov
Backs: “Voters no longer just disagree with their opponents; they actively dislike and distrust them. The "Feeling Thermometer": The American National Election Studies (ANES) has long asked voters to rate the opposing party on a warmth scale from 0 to 100.”
- listenfirstproject.org
Backs: “The "Feeling Thermometer": The American National Election Studies (ANES) has long asked voters to rate the opposing party on a warmth scale from 0 to 100. In 2000, only 8% of partisans gave the other party a "zero" (coldest possible rating).”
- democracyproject.org
Backs: “Following the Civil War, the late 19th century was characterized by deep partisan hostility, political violence (particularly surrounding the Jim Crow South), and highly contested presidential elections. The election of 1876 was so intensely disputed and marred by allegations of fraud that it nearly sparked a second…”
- wikipedia.org
Backs: “Following the Civil War, the late 19th century was characterized by deep partisan hostility, political violence (particularly surrounding the Jim Crow South), and highly contested presidential elections. The election of 1876 was so intensely disputed and marred by allegations of fraud that it nearly sparked a second…”
- cardinalnews.org
Backs: “The election of 1876 was so intensely disputed and marred by allegations of fraud that it nearly sparked a second civil war before a backroom political compromise was reached. Like today, the Gilded Age was a time of massive technological disruption, rapid immigration, widening wealth inequality, and close, razor-thin…”
- usc.edu
Backs: “Political scientists note that the high polarization of the Gilded Age was actually the historical norm; the low-polarization "bipartisan consensus" of the mid-20th century was the anomaly. ---. Why Today’s Polarization Feels Uniquely Dangerous”
- bu.edu
Backs: “Megadiffusion of Identity: In the past, a person's political party did not automatically tell you their religion, race, geography, or cultural tastes. Today, these identities have fused.”