Op-Ed: A House Divided Cannot Stand
166 years after Abraham Lincoln’s remark that “a house divided against itself cannot stand,” political polarization remains an issue in the United States (Image via Chris Ware, The New Yorker, 2022).
Written by Dawood S. ‘27 and Brody S. ‘27
In the wake of increasing socio-political tensions regarding the institution of slavery, then-candidate Abraham Lincoln remarked that “a house divided against itself cannot stand.” 166 years later, that historic statement could not be more relevant.
A short while ago, our nation bore witness to one of the most polarizing elections in recent history. Vice president Kamala Harris and former president Donald J. Trump faced off in a tense battle that most poll experts predicted could go either way. Despite the Republican party’s evident victory on executive and legislative fronts only days into the election process, political anxiety remains at an all-time high. The nation’s future has never been quite as unsure, and for most everyday citizens on both sides of the aisle, concern and distress remains omnipresent. While both parties established formidable platforms to attract Americans, neither seems to have quelled the ceaseless agitation most citizens have over the everyday issues that so clearly upset our nation. In fact, both the Democratic and Republican establishments have only served to accentuate and exacerbate the divisive partisanship which dominates modern American politics and society.
Our country has never been more divided, nor exhausted. Both sides of the aisle have gravitated towards the extreme and sensationalist, a far cry from the respectful and conceited nature of general elections past, a norm which came crashing down with the 2016 election.
A History of American Partisanship
This division must also be regarded in a historical light, begging the question - has the United States always been engaged in partisan politics? Though recency bias has meant that many Americans feel that the ‘Sixth Party System’, or the structure of political institutions that has dominated American politics since the 1980s, the truth is that America has constantly faced historical periods marked by animosity between two major political institutions. These hostilities have shown up time and time again in the nation’s history, and though the ideologies and principles at play may have varied, the bitterness which engulfs our current system is proven by these examples to have not been new at all.
Since the nation’s birth, antagonistic sentiments between two major parties have been evident. In 1796, George Washington’s condemnation of partisan politics as inherently undermining the merits of a republic during his farewell address.
That same year, the presidential election between Jefferson and Adams would see intense rivalries and fiery mudslinging take center stage, with the election resulting in Adams barely securing a victory of just three votes.
American history, however, proves that after any major conflict that threatens the survival of the nation, bipartisan sentiments tend to follow. After the War of 1812, the Democratic-Republicans would cement their foothold in government, with an ‘Era of Good Feelings’; so encompassing was national harmony that James Monroe would eventually enter the White House without having ever faced an opponent.
Nevertheless, these feelings would evaporate in what is, in retrospect, perhaps the fiercest example of partisanship in American politics - the antebellum era, in which tensions over slavery famously divided the nation’s unity in what would culminate in the Civil War. Doubtless, the current state of American political affairs is far more docile than it was back then.
Thus, the only justifiable complaint to be made regarding American partisanship in this day and age should be done through an examination of more recent politics. Though one should not overlook the early to mid 20th century, it may be argued that due to the variety of crises that the two world wars, economic depression, and cold war brought about, for a good period of time parties did not take center stage as the most extreme threat to American unity. However, the post-Civil Rights Era ideological realignment would see both parties appeal to either a liberal or conservative voting bloc, culminating in the current political system which has dominated national discourse. Thus, the contemporary division in American politics - though not by any means an original phenomenon - has certainly been exacerbated by historical trends that have solidified modern party platforms which although previously heterogenous affiliations have thus morphed into distinctive, streamlined, and hostile factions.
Why do we feel as if America is more polarized than ever?
The great fact that America must reckon with, as we stress in the previous section, is that political partisanship is the simple and inherent consequence of the democratic system. And yet the illusionary sentiment of a historically unique divisiveness lingers in the nation’s collective consciousness, a sentiment born not so much out of rational historical retrospect but, arguably, drawn from the deluge of voices only made discernible through the domineering powers of modern technology. Although the massive impact of politically positioned networks like Fox News and CNN cannot be understated, an even more prominent accelerant has emerged in recent years. Indeed, it is the tremendous output of information that has been made possible since the birth of the internet which has meant that in recent years, American politics seem to be more divisive than ever before - even if that isn’t necessarily true.
As of last year, 97.1% of Americans have some online presence, compared to only 71% in 2013 and 52% in 2000. The rising popularity of online media has meant not only that more people have gained access to news and information regarding politics, but that many can pay attention to or actively articulate themselves unique takes on the effectiveness of the political establishment. Though this may seem like an upside - increased popular representation in politics certainly consolidates popular sovereignty - the opposite effect seems to have occurred. The general public has noted this correlation between online presence and political animosity. According to a study conducted by Pew Research Center, in 2022 an overwhelming 79% of Americans believed that social media has caused more division in political opinions, the highest percentage across 19 countries polled. An international perspective is crucial to recognize as well; although a median 35% of citizens have found social media destructive to the strength of their nation’s democracies, in America that sentiment is shared across 65% of pollees. Meanwhile, despite a median 46% of surveyed individuals finding that social media has made politics less civil, 69% of Americans take that position. To quote the research itself, “the U.S. is an outlier on a number of measures, with larger shares of Americans seeing social media as divisive”. How can we explain this?
Though in recent years misinformation across social media and the internet has taken the spotlight as the single most threat to the strength of American unity and democracy, this issue, nevertheless, does not completely explain away national division. Nor can the potential exploitation of national discourse by foreign imperative, a threat that has increasingly become relevant in both parties’ political rhetoric, account for the state of the union. Rather than some single user or body of users advocating for some political stance, we rather posit that it is the manipulative nature of algorithms itself which fuels sectarianism in our day and age. Platforms like Instagram and Facebook, to most people after some time online, cater to already established but typically moderated viewpoints. The well-known political “pipelines” that social media sites use to foster further engagement are becoming exacerbated as more people establish presence online. And yet the ulterior motive behind the promotion of such ideas online is not to stoke further divisiveness in our nation, but is rather a simple drive for profit. According to a report by the NYU Stern Business school, “Social media companies…boost user engagement…because the amount of time users spend on a platform liking, sharing, and retweeting is also the amount of time they spend looking at the paid advertising that makes the major platforms so lucrative.” Thus, the systems by which a great majority of Americans get their news from intentionally and actively work to accentuate differences between us.
A Look Into the Future of Discourse
The suppression of online political radicalism is a practical impossibility and a constitutional predicament, but two notable solutions - on the federal/corporate level and on the individual level - may be achieved. Firstly, more transparency regarding the workings of online algorithm systems would certify the extent to which these systems drive both hatred and profit. The second solution is simpler but perhaps just as difficult - bring rationalism into politics. The necessity for nuance and skepticism in American discourse cannot be understated in an age of unlimited information access. The media awareness which institutions like Browning have already been able to educate students on needs to be expanded to the general public in an age where blind radicalization is a real possibility without the aid of critical thinking and bias recognition.