We have been hurtling toward extreme polarization in nearly every issue from gun control and immigration to fracking and climate change. In a time of such hostile debate, many Americans have stopped considering compromise as an option, viewing fellow citizens as enemies instead of colleagues. Politicians, especially during this election season, have seen this desire for drastic measures and capitalized on it, forcing the two major parties further apart and leaving little hope of success for minor parties.
In 1972, about half of United States voters considered themselves moderate, as opposed to leaning one way or the other. By 2015, that number had dropped 10%. A shift that large is made even more significant when one realizes how far people are willing to go to defend what they think is right.
Furthermore, the two major political parties have grown more rigid in ideology. In the 1980s, there was a great diversity in parties—liberal Republicans and conservative Democrats weren’t uncommon. Now, the words liberal and Democrat have become almost interchangeable, as have conservative and Republican.
These boundaries within the people can’t help but transfer to politicians as well. The battle between the parties has become top priority. As early as 2010, Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell stated that his goal was to prevent the election (or reelection) of a Democratic president. Just recently, when asked by Anderson Cooper of CNN which enemy made during her political career she was most proud of, presidential candidate Hillary Clinton replied with “the Republicans.”
The rift between the parties is only being further exacerbated by the current presidential campaigns, which can only be described as belligerent. Though there are valid beliefs being debated between the parties, it seems that the two leading candidates, Trump and Clinton, are set on antagonizing each other with increasingly petty mudslinging.
Personal insults and hate politics are distracting us from the real issues at hand. We as observers have a habit of fixating on nonpolitical details that take the attention away from debates that really matter. We should be concentrating on whose policies are better suited to ameliorate the country’s deepening economic and social problems, instead of arguments purposely meant to goad the public into hatred.
Division itself has the potential to be beneficial, given that it remains cordial and cooperative. After all, democracy depends on debates between competing views to drive the country forward. Ideally, the two-party system would ensure that different opinions are brought to the table and that both parties work to benefit everyone. Ideally, the two parties would keep each other in check. But instead, people assume that the system is one of black and white, right and wrong, and that theirs is America’s defining party. Our system has become not an effort to problem-solve together, but a constant battle for power. People, not parties, should lead the country.
Some states have taken steps to refocus their elections. In 2010, California adopted an “open primary” system in which ballots and voters were not tied to party; every candidate would appear on the same ballot, and any voter would be able to choose among them, regardless of party. Louisiana and Washington state have similar systems. This not only breaks the partisan restrictions on ideology but also gives minor-party candidates a higher chance of becoming one of the top two finalists. This way, people can really vote for who they agree with, instead of having to settle for a “lesser of evils” between two antipodal major-party candidates.
Though this practice may not take hold in the rest of the country, it is one step toward lessening the polarization and consequent hatred between two groups of people that are supposed to work together. Differing opinions and the ability to voice them are an American right, but only through cooperation will this diversity of thought move the country forward.