How hollow politics, divisive partisan rhetoric, and affective polarization had led to modern civic discourse

---

It was the eve of Ronald Reagan’s inaugural win in 1984, and broadcasters portrayed “red for Reagan” on a red and blue water-colored mapping of America. Renowned American journalist, Steve Kornaki, marks this as one of the pivotal moments of partisan branding leading to the “Republican Revolution” and political tribalism (an “us vs. them” mentality) in the 1990s, kindling the cultural wars of the 2000s to extremism reflected in the past two decades of partisan rhetoric. 

Dr. Robert J. Vanderbei at Princeton University relays similar trends: purple counties are consistently decreasing while split ticket voting is increasing – why have we reached this point of polarization?

As political scientists Sam Rosenfeld and Daniel Scholzman point out, parties have become more hollow or agendaless. I believe this creates an increase of political anxiety and affective polarization from candidate conflation of our hollow parties. Not only is every candidate seen in their resident “party blob”, but also their lack of policy purpose manifests in voter fatigue which we see in low voter turnout. Where does this apathy come from? 

Affective polarization is an emotional activation which urges community, not from a place of in-group favoritism but out-group hostility. Division has not just grown between political parties but has also inherently grown within political parties as an amplification of individual civic psyches and voter’s political anxieties. 

Pew Research shows that affective polarization had been consistently intensifying since 1994 across the political spectrum. Professor Lillian Mason of Political Science at John Hopkins says:

“Recent survey data revealed that more than half of Republicans and Democrats view the other party as “a threat”,  and nearly as many agree with the description of the other party as “evil”. 

It’s not just that Americans are more polarized than ever before, there’s a psychological component that’s new – either stemming from frustration from political passivity (hollow politics) or being weaponized by politicians through divisiveness; both only intensifying the polarization trend. 

Aggregating interests on partisan issues while attempting to represent majorities leaves an inattention to relevant issues and minority voices which emboldens campaigns – a clear example is of the 2024 presidential election cycle where the Democrats ran on an anti-Trump policy and Republicans utilized the personalistic regime of Trump in their favor. But why was weaponization more powerful than frustration? 1) Republicans built campaigning around a lose-win environment rather than a compromise for power. 2) Trump gauged his rhetoric towards a known sector of his party through divisiveness rather than trying to appeal to an invisible majority. 

Note: This is not me saying we should play into divisiveness as a form of partisan campaigning, but we can agree it’s a robust rhetoric -especially for personality regimes- because it builds resentment towards an “other” or out-group. 

Political and cultural commentator, David Brooks (and self identified centrist) may have an internal answer to our polarization woes. He argues that without a strong structure of values through moral education, Americans have been left with moral emptiness, leaving no resolve when hard times hit – whether it’s economically, socially, or personally. While I don’t know if having courses on moral character in primary school is the answer, Brooks is getting at a core problem about political rhetoric, being able to think for yourself while still honoring another’s personhood. However, we must remember the argument we perceive in the media is not always an actuality. 

Dr. Amber Hye-Yon Lee , a Political Scientist from University of Pennsylvania, says not all is lost in terms of positivity and of perceptions of “othering” in politics. Her and colleagues (2022) partisanship study reveals negative partisanship is not more prevalent than positive partisanship. Furthermore, she believes negative partisanship is exaggerated since her experiment proved positive partisanship at the same levels of bias as negative partisanship. 

In her words, 

“The results indicate that people are not necessarily focused on hurting out-partisans in the opposing group any more than on benefiting their own group of co-partisans, which does not fit with the negative partisanship view.” 

Yet, this experimental dynamic was conducted in petite group dynamics compared to a national stage so it may be more reflective of local politics rather than presidential campaigns which feeds off of various media echo chambers with decreased attention spans. This only further aggravates binary views and dehumanizes the other side through resentment in zero-sum games. In other words, your group having access to this resource will somehow decrease my group’s access.

Lee et al.’s 2022 Negative partisan study published in Nature Human Behavior

So, where does this leave America when it comes to resolving the albatross of polarization? To put is simply, purple states can’t exist in a world of polarization. 

Portrayal of politics in national media is a great place to start for dissuading misinformation, reestablishing cultural respect, and reminding both parties of an agreed upon societal common goal. Across expertise, research, and psychological studies, we have seen that political identity is just not who we are to the world, but also what we want our reality to be shown in the partisan groups we buy into. 

There is a clear roadmap for the next successful politician to bring down affective polarization: start where positive partisanship is high in grassroots efforts, stick up to specific policies of minority voices of the party, and not only appeal but contribute to a  larger common goal. In-group favoritism comes before out-group hate – let’s use it. 

---

Written by Jordan Strain: Co-founder and Co-president of Vocal Chords Journal. She is a senior at GW studying political science and psychological brain sciences. Her special interests include singing, sewing, writing poetry sporadically, & reading academic nonfiction.