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

Whether political polarization is worse today than in the past depends entirely on which "past" you are comparing it to.

To understand where we are today, political scientists and historians generally split the question into two parts: the modern era (the last 50 to 70 years) and the deep historical past (the 19th and early 20th centuries).

1. The Modern Era: Yes, it is much worse

Compared to any point in the mid-to-late 20th century, political polarization in the United States is at or near historic highs. This manifests in two distinct ways:

•Ideological Polarization: The political parties are far more ideologically distinct than they used to be. In the 1950s through the 1970s, both parties were "big tents." The Democratic Party included liberal Northerners and conservative Southern segregationists. The Republican Party had both conservative Midwesterners and liberal Northeasterners. Today, "cross-pressured" or moderate politicians have virtually disappeared from Congress.

•Affective Polarization: This refers to how much members of one political party actively dislike and distrust members of the other. According to studies from the Pew Research Center and Brown University, affective polarization in the U.S. has skyrocketed since the late 1970s. In 1960, only about 4% to 5% of Americans said they would be displeased if their child married someone from the opposing political party; by the 2010s, that number had jumped to roughly one-third of Democrats and half of Republicans. Today, a majority of voters in both parties view the other side not just as people with different ideas, but as immoral or a threat to the nation.

While political polarization has ticked up globally, research shows that the speed and intensity of this shift in the United States over the last few decades has been exceptional compared to other major Western democracies.

2. Deep History: No, we have seen worse

If we look further back in American history, today's divisions—while deeply concerning—are not unprecedented.

•The Civil War Era (1850s–1860s): This remains the absolute peak of American political polarization. In the lead-up to the Civil War, polarization was not just rhetorical; it led to physical violence on the floor of the Senate (such as the caning of Charles Sumner) and eventually to a bloody war that cost the lives of hundreds of thousands of Americans. Today's political dysfunction has not resulted in the wholesale geographic secession of states or a massive, armed military conflict.

•The Gilded Age (1870s–1890s): Historians frequently point to the late 19th century as the closest parallel to our current moment. During the Gilded Age, the country was split by intense partisan tribalism, massive wealth inequality, high immigration, and technological disruption. Congress was deeply gridlocked, "bloody shirt" rhetoric (using Civil War trauma to demonize political opponents) was rampant, and political violence was common.

Why Today’s Polarization Feels Different

Even though we are not in a civil war, modern polarization has unique features that make it feel uniquely intense and difficult to escape:

1."Social Sorting" is Complete: In the past, a person’s political party did not automatically tell you their religion, race, geography, or cultural tastes. Today, partisan identity has become "mega-identities." If you know someone's political party, you can make highly accurate guesses about where they live (urban vs. rural), their religious habits, and their views on social issues. Because politics is now tied to our fundamental identities, political disagreements feel like existential cultural threats.

2.The Media Environment and Technology: In the Gilded Age, partisan newspapers were common, but their reach was localized. Today, social media algorithms, 24-hour cable news, and internet echo chambers nationalize and amplify anger instantaneously. These platforms often reward the most extreme voices, leading to a "perceived polarization" where everyday citizens believe the opposing side is far more extreme than they actually are.

3.Nationalization of Politics: Local news has largely declined, and local elections are now heavily influenced by national issues. In the past, a voter might support a politician from the other party because they did good work for their local town. Today, local and state elections are treated as proxies for national cultural battles, making bipartisan compromise much harder for politicians to justify to their voters.

The Takeaway

If the benchmark is the relatively peaceful, bipartisan era of the mid-20th century (which itself was an anomaly, largely united by the shared existential threats of the Great Depression, World War II, and the Cold War), then yes, political polarization is worse than it has been in living memory.

However, if the benchmark is the entirety of American history, the country has navigated similarly deep—and occasionally much worse—chasms before. Historically, these highly polarized eras tend to end when the existing political coalitions fracture, creating new alignments and opportunities for cooperation.

Citations (10)

1wikipedia.orgEncyclopedias and referencequality 0.83
wikipedia.org
Backs: “The Republican Party had both conservative Midwesterners and liberal Northeasterners.”
2emerald.comAcademic
emerald.com
Backs: “The Republican Party had both conservative Midwesterners and liberal Northeasterners.”
3usc.eduAcademic
usc.edu
Backs: “Today, "cross-pressured" or moderate politicians have virtually disappeared from Congress.”
4wikipedia.orgEncyclopedias and referencequality 0.83
wikipedia.org
Backs: “Today, "cross-pressured" or moderate politicians have virtually disappeared from Congress.”
5brown.eduAcademic
brown.edu
Backs: “According to studies from the Pew Research Center and Brown University, affective polarization in the U.S. has skyrocketed since the late 1970s.”
6syr.eduAcademic
syr.edu
Backs: “Today, a majority of voters in both parties view the other side not just as people with different ideas, but as immoral or a threat to the nation.”
7richardheinberg.comNot yet classified
richardheinberg.com
Backs: “In the lead-up to the Civil War, polarization was not just rhetorical; it led to physical violence on the floor of the Senate (such as the caning of Charles Sumner) and eventually to a bloody war that cost the lives of hundreds of thousands of Americans. Today's political dysfunction has not resulted in the wholesale…”
8cfr.orgNonprofits and think tanks
cfr.org
Backs: “The Gilded Age (1870s–1890s): Historians frequently point to the late 19th century as the closest parallel to our current moment. During the Gilded Age, the country was split by intense partisan tribalism, massive wealth inequality, high immigration, and technological disruption.”
9democracyproject.orgNonprofits and think tanks
democracyproject.org
Backs: “Congress was deeply gridlocked, "bloody shirt" rhetoric (using Civil War trauma to demonize political opponents) was rampant, and political violence was common.”
10facinghistory.orgNonprofits and think tanks
facinghistory.org
Backs: “Today, social media algorithms, 24-hour cable news, and internet echo chambers nationalize and amplify anger instantaneously. These platforms often reward the most extreme voices, leading to a "perceived polarization" where everyday citizens believe the opposing side is far more extreme than they actually are.”