chevron-down Created with Sketch Beta.
    July 10, 2024 ABA Task Force for American Democracy

    Polarization, Democracy & Political Violence in the U.S.: What the Research Says

    Rachel Kleinfeld, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, September 2023
    Download Full Article

    Summary

    U.S. voters are not especially ideologically polarized, but they are emotionally polarized, exhibiting strong feelings of dislike toward the opposing party. Political leaders and media figures who normalize violence and antidemocratic behavior can motivate aggressive individuals with such feelings to direct their violence toward political ends. The most effective ways to reduce this polarization include correcting misperceptions about the opposing party’s composition and beliefs, highlighting areas of common ground, and implementing structural changes to disincentivize polarization.

    Key Findings/Messages

    • U.S. politicians’ strong ideological polarization has been increasing since the 1990s, and is largely due to local party procedures and primary elections. Most voters, however, are much less ideologically polarized (except for elites and highly politically engaged voters).
    • But voters are quite emotionally (or “affectively”) polarized, exhibiting strong feelings of dislike toward the other party. These negative feelings, which have been increasing since the rise of cable news and talk radio, are driven mainly by misconceptions about the opposing party’s demographic makeup, policy beliefs, and support for democratic norm-breaking.
    • Even so, reducing affective polarization may be a mistaken target, as these efforts appear to change voters’ feelings but not their voting behavior. This is likely because polarization does not directly correlate with support for antidemocratic actions and violence. Highly polarized voters on both the left and right also tend to be the most politically engaged and pro-democracy. In contrast, more moderate voters with little political engagement, general distrust of American institutions, and weak party affiliation are the most willing to endorse political violence and antidemocratic tactics. Of course, while polarization alone is not causing political violence, political leaders may take advantage of affective polarization among “aggressive people whose impulse control is low,” such as by using rhetoric that makes aggressive individuals shift their focus from personal interactions toward political targets and hate crimes.

    Key Recommendations Made

    • To reduce polarization: correct misperceptions about the other party’s identity, demographic makeup, and policies; emphasize common identities and the existence of common beliefs on specific issues; and institute structural changes that disincentivize politicians and media from polarizing the public. “[I]t is not enough to focus only on interventions that reduce the emotions of affective polarization at the individual level. Interventions should consider the interplay between affective polarization and political structures, incentives, and strategies.”(45)
    • Interventions should seek to dispel, rather than emphasize, false perceptions that members of the other party threaten to destroy democracy. This approach is more effective than direct efforts to reduce hostile feelings toward members of the other party. Avoid fearmongering, which can increase voter turnout but tends to deepen polarization and build support for antidemocratic behavior.
    • More long-term studies about polarization are needed. Most of the current data come from short-term (up to two week) studies.