Is political polarization worse than it's been in the past?
To answer whether political polarization is worse than in the past, political scientists and historians generally divide the comparison into two baselines: modern history (the last 50 to 70 years) and deep history (going back to the founding of the United States).
The consensus is that while we are not in a state of literal armed conflict like the American Civil War, political polarization today is worse than at any point in modern history. Furthermore, it possesses several unique, modern characteristics that make it structurally harder to resolve than past eras of high partisanship.
1. The Modern Context: Worse Than the Last 70 Years
If you compare today's political climate to the mid-20th century (the 1950s through the 1970s), polarization is vastly worse.
During the mid-20th century, the two major American political parties were "big tents." You could easily find conservative Southern Democrats and liberal Northeast Republicans. In fact, in the 1960s, there was roughly a 50% ideological overlap between the two parties in Congress.
Today, that overlap has completely vanished. Data analyzing congressional voting patterns (known as NOMINATE scores) shows that Congress is more polarized today than at any point since the Reconstruction Era of the late 1870s.
However, historians note that the mid-20th century was actually a historical anomaly of unusually low polarization. That era of bipartisan cooperation was often kept stable by both parties collectively ignoring or compromising on civil rights for Black Americans. The passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Voting Rights Act of 1965 shattered this consensus, setting off a decades-long partisan realignment.
2. The Deep History Context: How It Compares to the 19th Century
To find periods of polarization that match or exceed today's, you have to look further back:
3. Why Modern Polarization is Uniquely Dangerous
While we aren't fighting a physical civil war, researchers point to several modern trends that make today's polarization uniquely toxic and difficult to heal:
A. "Affective" Polarization (Hatred vs. Disagreement)
In the past, polarization was mostly ideological—people disagreed on policy. Today, it is predominantly affective polarization, which means voters do not just disagree with the other side’s policies; they actively dislike and fear them as people.
B. Cultural and Demographic "Sorting"
In the past, political identity was cross-cut by other identities. A voter might have been a Democrat, but also a conservative churchgoer, a rural farmer, or a wealthy business owner. Today, voters have "sorted."
Our political parties have aligned almost perfectly with our social identities. One party has become overwhelmingly urban, secular, highly educated, and racially diverse; the other has become overwhelmingly rural, religious, non-college-educated, and white. Because there are fewer "cross-cutting cleavages," politics has morphed from a debate about public policy into a high-stakes clash over cultural survival and identity.
C. Asymmetric Drift
Political scientists tracking voting records have found that polarization has not been entirely symmetrical. While both parties have grown more cohesive and moved away from the center since the 1970s, the Republican Party has experienced a much steeper, more dramatic shift to the right than the Democratic Party’s shift to the left.
D. The Modern Media and Tech Ecosystem
The fragmentation of the media landscape—from the rise of partisan cable news and talk radio to social media algorithms designed to maximize outrage for engagement—has created closed-loop echo chambers. This makes it incredibly easy for voters to consume entirely different sets of "facts," making a shared national reality virtually non-existent.
E. It is Happening Faster in the U.S.
This is not just a global trend. A major study co-authored by researchers at Brown and Stanford found that while political polarization has risen in several Western democracies, the United States is polarizing significantly faster and more deeply than comparable nations like Canada, the UK, Australia, or Germany.
Summary
If "worse" is defined by physical violence and the collapse of the Union, we are not at the level of the 1860s. But by almost every other metric—including congressional gridlock, social sorting, and psychological animosity—political polarization in America is at its highest and most dangerous level in roughly 150 years.
Citations (18)
- usc.edu
Backs: “To answer whether political polarization is worse than in the past, political scientists and historians generally divide the comparison into two baselines: modern history (the last 50 to 70 years) and deep history (going back to the founding of the United States).”
- democracyproject.org
Backs: “To answer whether political polarization is worse than in the past, political scientists and historians generally divide the comparison into two baselines: modern history (the last 50 to 70 years) and deep history (going back to the founding of the United States).”
- syr.edu
Backs: “The consensus is that while we are not in a state of literal armed conflict like the American Civil War, political polarization today is worse than at any point in modern history. Furthermore, it possesses several unique, modern characteristics that make it structurally harder to resolve than past eras of high…”
- pewresearch.org
Backs: “The consensus is that while we are not in a state of literal armed conflict like the American Civil War, political polarization today is worse than at any point in modern history. Furthermore, it possesses several unique, modern characteristics that make it structurally harder to resolve than past eras of high…”
- northwestern.edu
Backs: “The consensus is that while we are not in a state of literal armed conflict like the American Civil War, political polarization today is worse than at any point in modern history. Furthermore, it possesses several unique, modern characteristics that make it structurally harder to resolve than past eras of high…”
- stanfordmag.org
Backs: “During the mid-20th century, the two major American political parties were "big tents." You could easily find conservative Southern Democrats and liberal Northeast Republicans.”
- usc.edu
Backs: “In fact, in the 1960s, there was roughly a 50% ideological overlap between the two parties in Congress.”
- brookings.edu
Backs: “Today, that overlap has completely vanished.”
- emerald.com
Backs: “However, historians note that the mid-20th century was actually a historical anomaly of unusually low polarization.”
- usc.edu
Backs: “However, historians note that the mid-20th century was actually a historical anomaly of unusually low polarization.”
- prospect.org
Backs: “The passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Voting Rights Act of 1965 shattered this consensus, setting off a decades-long partisan realignment.”
- medium.com
Backs: “The passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Voting Rights Act of 1965 shattered this consensus, setting off a decades-long partisan realignment.”
- brookings.edu
Backs: “The Civil War Era (1850s–1860s): This remains the high-water mark of American polarization. During this time, the country split geographically, economically, and ideologically over the moral issue of slavery, resulting in a physical war that killed hundreds of thousands of Americans.”
- cfr.org
Backs: “The Gilded Age (1870s–1890s): The late 19th century was incredibly partisan, featuring massive social turmoil, media wars, and government gridlock. However, political scientists note a key difference: Gilded Age polarization was primarily a battle over "spoils" (who got federal patronage, jobs, and government…”
- cambridge.org
Backs: “The Gilded Age (1870s–1890s): The late 19th century was incredibly partisan, featuring massive social turmoil, media wars, and government gridlock. However, political scientists note a key difference: Gilded Age polarization was primarily a battle over "spoils" (who got federal patronage, jobs, and government…”
- wikipedia.org
Backs: “In the past, polarization was mostly ideological—people disagreed on policy. Today, it is predominantly affective polarization, which means voters do not just disagree with the other side’s policies; they actively dislike and fear them as people.”
- wikipedia.org
Backs: “In the past, polarization was mostly ideological—people disagreed on policy. Today, it is predominantly affective polarization, which means voters do not just disagree with the other side’s policies; they actively dislike and fear them as people.”
- brown.edu
Backs: “The fragmentation of the media landscape—from the rise of partisan cable news and talk radio to social media algorithms designed to maximize outrage for engagement—has created closed-loop echo chambers. This makes it incredibly easy for voters to consume entirely different sets of "facts," making a shared national…”