Political polarization is one of the most intensely debated topics in today’s society. It has become increasingly difficult to reconcile the two strands of the literature into a unified definition, as the idea of political polarization has taken on a variety of meanings in different contexts. To better understand the implications of political polarization, it is important to define what it is and how it affects our society.
At its core, political polarization is the growing divide between two political parties or ideologies, resulting in intense disagreement and conflict. This is seen through the growing gap between the two major U.S. political parties, the Republican and Democratic parties, who often disagree on major issues such as healthcare, gun laws, and immigration. This divide is also seen in other countries, as well as on social media, where it is often exacerbated by partisan rhetoric and inflammatory language.
I think we’re coming to a time of polarization fatigue—where problems are mounting and solutions seem hard to come by. When we talk about politicians willing to emulate Trump, it’s really about the extreme polarization that’s been going on in the United States for some time. This has resulted in a situation where compromise and bipartisanship are increasingly rare, making it difficult to move forward on critical issues.
One potential way to reduce political polarization is by increasing public participation in the political process. This can be done through voting, volunteering for campaigns and initiatives, and joining a political party. Additionally, the all-volunteer force in 1973 compelled the Army to define, shape, and strengthen the values of the American soldier, creating a sense of shared identity and purpose. Through this process, the Army could begin to overcome political polarization and bring the country together.
The field of deliberative democracy offers another strategy to reduce political polarization. This is a theory that focuses on the need to reground politics in fundamental democratic principles, and to turn to citizens as the protagonists to make policy decisions. This was always a risk of the U.S. political system—that the power of the Executive is a leading character in the definition of good government. Through deliberative democracy, citizens can actively engage in the political process, helping to reduce polarization through dialogue and the exchange of ideas.
In this study specifically, we define polarization as the group average of the difference between the proportion of individual agreement to an issue, and the proportion of individual disagreement to an issue. This definition is based on the idea that polarization occurs when there is a significant gap between people’s opinions on a given issue, resulting in a lack of consensus. Additionally, the definition of “foreign agent” will effectively cover the entire spectrum of actors engaging in political activities, from political parties and movements to non-governmental organizations and independent media.
In the 20th century, so-called “deliberative democracy” theorists expanded on that notion, defining idealized processes for democratic decision-making that could help to reduce political polarization. This theory emphasizes the need for citizens to engage in dialogue and the exchange of ideas in order to make policy decisions. Additionally, the World Economic Forum (WEF) recommends broadening the definition of Social and Emotional Learning (SEL) to further support youth in developing the skills to engage in deliberative democracy.
Ultimately, while social media can be used as a tool to facilitate dialogue, it can also create an echo chamber that amplifies political polarization. This is because users are more likely to interact with people who share their views, creating a feedback loop that reinforces their beliefs. As a result, social media has instead increased political polarization and the divide between different political ideologies.
