If We Can Keep It

1. America's Political Polarization is Historically Normal.

What’s normal, as a longer look at history amply shows, is, indeed, polarization.

Historical precedent. American politics has almost always been characterized by intense division and rancor, dating back to the republic's earliest days. The idea that political polarization is a new phenomenon, originating in the 1990s, is a misconception. This historical reality challenges the notion of a consistently civil past.

Early divisions. The nation's first political parties, Federalists and Democratic-Republicans, formed quickly despite the founders' warnings against "faction." Their clashes over the size and power of the federal government mirrored today's fundamental debates. These early conflicts were often ferocious, with figures like Thomas Jefferson ominously noting "a vast mass of discontent gathered in the South."

Intraparty conflict. For much of American history, polarization existed not only between parties but also significantly within them. Parties were often "giant stew pots of competing interests and factions," forced to form broad, ideologically incoherent coalitions to win national elections. This internal division, rather than strict ideological alignment, was the historical norm.

2. Founding Compromises Created Enduring Systemic Flaws.

Quite often, their decisions weren’t the majestic acts of pure genius that we were told they were back in third grade.

Imperfect design. The American legislative system, particularly Congress, was not a product of flawless genius but of difficult compromises and overlooked details. These foundational decisions continue to contribute to modern polarization. The founders, for instance, barely discussed the method of electing representatives to the House.

Senate's origins. The creation of the Senate, granting equal representation to all states regardless of population, passed by a single vote (5-4-1) at the Constitutional Convention. This "Connecticut Compromise" was not universally celebrated and has led to significant disparities, such as Wyoming's 586,000 people having the same voice as California's 39.1 million. This imbalance was a compromise, not an ideal.

House representation. The House of Representatives, intended to be "close to the people," has historically been distorted. Single-member districts, inherited from Britain, often left many citizens unrepresented. States frequently ignored mandates for equitable reapportionment, leading to rural overrepresentation and urban underrepresentation for nearly 180 years, until Supreme Court rulings in the 1960s.

3. Political Parties Evolved as Ideological "Hodgepodges" Until Recently.

But—and this is the crucial part—they have also fought among themselves.

Broad coalitions. For nearly two centuries, American political parties were sprawling, ideologically diverse coalitions, often at war internally over patronage and fundamental issues like slavery. This "hodgepodge" nature was driven by the need to forge North-South alliances and adapt to the country's continuous geographic expansion and shifting economic interests.

Early party dynamics. The First Party System saw Federalists (cosmopolitan, pro-manufacturing, strong federal government) clash with Democratic-Republicans (agrarian, limited government). Later, the Second Party System (Democrats vs. Whigs) also featured internal contradictions, with Whigs uniting anti-Jackson Northerners and slaveholding Southerners. These parties prioritized winning elections over ideological purity.

Post-Civil War shifts. After Lincoln, Republicans, initially the liberal, big-government party, gradually became the conservative, pro-business party, while Democrats remained a fractured entity of Southern racists, Northern urban machines, and plains farmers. These internal tensions, like the "Radical Republicans" or the Democrats' "Barnburners" and "Hunkers," were a defining feature of American politics until the mid-20th century.

4. The Post-War "Age of Consensus" Was a Brief, Unique Aberration.

That period of low polarization from roughly 1945 to 1980 or thereabouts happened for a very specific set of historical reasons that cannot be repeated.

Unique circumstances. The era of reduced polarization from the end of World War II to around 1980 was an anomaly in American history, born from the shared experiences of the Great Depression and World War II. These events fostered a sense of national unity, sacrifice, and a common civic purpose that transcended partisan divides.

Conscious effort. This consensus was not accidental; it was actively cultivated by leaders across various sectors:

• Corporate and labor leaders promoted "the American Way."
• Civic and religious organizations encouraged tolerance and shared identity.
• Government initiatives like the Office of War Information fostered morale.
  This collective effort aimed to counteract divisions and reinforce democratic values.

Shared experience. The generation that lived through the Depression and fought in WWII brought a unique perspective to politics. Veterans, having faced existential threats, viewed political opponents differently, fostering a spirit of cooperation. This led to significant bipartisan achievements, such as the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Medicare, which garnered support from both parties.

5. Multiple Social and Economic Fractures Drove Modern Polarization.

You wonder today why our politicians can’t just get along? This is when they, and we, started not getting along.

Cultural upheavals. The 1960s and 1970s saw the consensus unravel due to profound social and cultural shifts. Movements for civil rights, women's liberation, and anti-war protests challenged existing norms and created new fault lines. These issues, previously suppressed or ignored, exploded into public debate, forcing a "great ideological sorting out" of the parties.

Economic stresses. Simultaneously, economic conditions exacerbated divisions:

• Wage stagnation began around 1973, as productivity and pay decoupled.
• The Great Inflation (1965-1982) eroded purchasing power and trust.
• Deindustrialization led to job losses and the rise of the "Rust Belt."
  These economic anxieties fueled resentment and made compromise harder, as each side blamed different scapegoats.

Conservative mobilization. The conservative movement, initially a fringe element, gained traction by tapping into the backlash against these changes. Figures like William F. Buckley Jr. and Barry Goldwater laid the intellectual and political groundwork. The religious right mobilized not primarily over abortion, but initially over school desegregation, demonstrating how cultural issues became potent political weapons.

6. The Rise of Consumerism Eroded Civic Engagement.

In the United States since 1980, not only is de Tocqueville’s assessment too sunny—so is Rousseau’s! Our hearts are hardly even divided anymore. We have given ourselves to our private pursuits.

Shift in identity. Since the 1980s, American society has increasingly prioritized the "consumer self" over the "citizen self." This shift, driven by economic transformations, has weakened civic bonds and made collective action more difficult. The relentless pursuit of individual wants has overshadowed the common interest.

Credit and deregulation. The expansion of credit and financial deregulation in the late 1970s and early 1980s fundamentally altered Americans' relationship with money. The Supreme Court's 1978 Marquette decision allowed banks to charge higher interest rates, leading to a credit card boom. Simultaneously, money market accounts and banking deregulation encouraged a "frantic search for yield," transforming the middle class into an "investing class."

Winner-take-all economy. The 1980s ushered in a "Go-Go Decade" characterized by:

• Exploding CEO and Wall Street compensation, driven by supply-side economics and deregulation.
• Leveraged buyouts and corporate restructuring, often at the expense of workers.
• The rise of "positional goods," where value is derived from status and comparison, fueling an unprecedented culture of consumption and inequality.
  This economic shift created a society where individual acquisition often trumped civic responsibility.

7. Right-Wing Media and Anti-Tax Pledges Cemented Partisan Divide.

This time frame, the early to mid-1990s, marked the beginning of the age we know so well today—of two different sets of facts, two different realities, which drove the country apart even more.

Media fragmentation. The repeal of the Fairness Doctrine in 1987 opened the floodgates for partisan media, particularly right-wing talk radio. Rush Limbaugh and others quickly dominated the AM dial, creating an echo chamber that reinforced conservative viewpoints and demonized liberals. This marked a profound shift from the relatively unified media landscape of the consensus era.

Conservative media ecosystem. By the 1990s, a powerful conservative media "solar system" emerged, including:

• Rupert Murdoch's New York Post and later Fox News Channel.
• The Washington Times and The Wall Street Journal's editorial page.
• Various opinion journals and talk shows.
  This network actively shaped narratives, often employing aggressive tactics and promoting "alternative facts," further entrenching partisan divisions and making it harder for the public to agree on a shared reality.

The anti-tax pledge. Grover Norquist's "Taxpayer Protection Pledge," introduced in the late 1980s, became a powerful tool for enforcing ideological purity within the Republican Party. After George H.W. Bush broke his "no new taxes" promise and lost reelection, signing the pledge became a litmus test for GOP candidates. This effectively eliminated bipartisan compromise on revenue, paralyzing Congress on fundamental issues like infrastructure funding.

8. Asymmetric Polarization: Republicans as a Movement, Democrats as a Coalition.

While the Democratic Party is fundamentally a group coalition, the Republican Party can be most accurately characterized as the vehicle of an ideological movement.

Distinct party structures. Modern American political parties are not mirror images of each other; they are fundamentally different entities. The Republican Party has largely been captured by a disciplined ideological movement (conservatism), while the Democratic Party remains a coalition of diverse interest groups. This asymmetry profoundly impacts their behavior and priorities.

Republican ideological purity. The GOP base demands ideological purity, leading elected officials to fear primary challenges from the right. This dynamic, exemplified by the defeat of long-serving moderates like Senator Dick Lugar, pushes Republicans further right. Their agenda is narrower, focused on "less government and a strong defense," with little internal competition to moderate these stances.

Democratic coalition politics. Democrats, in contrast, are a patchwork of groups (young people, urbanites, minorities, educated professionals) with varied demands. Their politicians often engage in "laundry-listing" in speeches to satisfy these diverse constituencies. While moving left, the Democratic Party still needs moderates to win majorities, especially in the House, making ideological purity less feasible than for Republicans.

9. Trump Embodies the Culmination of the Age of Fracture.

He is the apotheosis of the Age of Fracture.

Weaponized resentment. Donald Trump's presidency represents the culmination of decades of fracturing, particularly his weaponization of white ethnonationalist resentment within a segment of the Republican base. His rhetoric and actions have emboldened white supremacists and exacerbated racial tensions, pushing the country to a dangerous precipice of potential violence.

Disregard for institutions. Trump has demonstrated an unprecedented lack of respect for civic institutions, practices, and customs, including the Constitution and the rule of law. His actions, such as firing the FBI Director investigating him, would have triggered impeachment proceedings in a less partisan era. This erosion of norms threatens the fundamental checks and balances of democracy.

Social media's role. The Trump era has highlighted the toxic influence of social media on democracy. Platforms like Twitter and Facebook, designed for instantaneous, emotional reactions, have become conduits for disinformation and rage, often manipulated by foreign actors like Russia. This antideliberative environment undermines reasoned debate and fuels division, making it harder for citizens to discern truth from falsehood.

10. Systemic Reforms Can Mitigate, But Not Eliminate, Polarization.

Changing the ways we elect people can help, but it won’t get to the core reasons for our divisions.

Limits of political fixes. While political reforms can help alleviate some symptoms of polarization, they cannot address the deeper societal and cultural divisions. Polarization stems from substantive disagreements over issues like immigration, race, and the very nature of American society. Electoral system changes are tools, not ultimate solutions.

Gerrymandering reform. Ending partisan gerrymandering, by transferring redistricting power to independent commissions, is a crucial step. This could lead to more competitive districts and encourage more moderate candidates. However, its impact is limited by existing residential segregation and the need to preserve majority-minority districts.

Rethinking electoral methods. More radical, though currently unfeasible, reforms include:

• At-large congressional elections (or multimember districts) to ensure broader representation and encourage moderation.
• Ranked-choice voting to incentivize candidates to appeal to a wider ideological spectrum and reduce negative campaigning.
• Expanding the House of Representatives (contingent on non-single-member district elections) to bring representatives closer to their constituents.
• Eliminating the Senate filibuster to allow majority rule and prevent legislative paralysis.
• Abolishing the Electoral College (or adopting the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact) to ensure presidents are elected by popular mandate and campaign more broadly.

11. Reviving Moderate Republicanism is Crucial for Compromise.

There is no project in American politics more important, none that could do more to reduce polarization, than reviving moderate Republicanism.

The missing center. The absence of a robust moderate wing within the Republican Party is a primary driver of current polarization. Republican legislators, fearing primary challenges from the right, are disincentivized from compromise. Reintroducing a credible threat from the center is essential to shift GOP behavior.

Strategic investment. A concerted, long-term effort, backed by significant financial resources (billions, not millions), is needed to cultivate moderate Republicanism. This would involve:

• Identifying and organizing moderate Republican voters into an influential bloc.
• Recruiting and financially supporting centrist candidates in primaries.
• Creating a counter-narrative to the dominant right-wing media.
  Such an initiative would aim to create a "Club for Growth of the center" to challenge ideological extremism.

Impact on governance. A critical mass of moderate Republicans in Congress could break the "Hastert Rule," which prevents bills without majority GOP support from coming to a vote. This would enable bipartisan compromise on crucial issues like budget deals, infrastructure, and social programs, allowing Congress to function more effectively and address national needs.

12. Societal Engagement and Education are Essential for Civic Health.

We need more and better and more courageous leadership from prominent people in every realm.

Beyond politics. Addressing polarization requires a broader societal effort, not just political fixes. Leaders from corporate, labor, religious, and civic sectors must actively commit to rebuilding civic health and fostering a sense of shared national purpose. This means prioritizing long-term societal well-being over short-term gains.

Bridging divides. Practical initiatives to foster understanding and reduce distrust include:

• Inter-state exchange programs for university and high school students, exposing young people to diverse regions and cultures.
• Public service years for college students, performed in unfamiliar parts of the country, linked to student debt reduction.
• Workplace exchange programs for employees of national companies.
  These programs aim to build relationships and promote civil disagreement by getting people to know one another across regional and cultural lines.

Civics education revival. A massive expansion of civics education is critical to equip future generations with the tools for responsible citizenship. This should include:

• A robust, honest history curriculum throughout schooling.
• Teaching the virtues necessary for a healthy democracy, such as good-faith deliberation.
• Engaging deeply with foundational democratic texts.
  This aims to cultivate a populace more aware of its duties and less susceptible to hatred and misinformation, fostering a new, inclusive civic consensus.