







































 Humanities and Social Science Research; Vol. 8, No. 5; 2025 

ISSN 2576-3024   E-ISSN 2576-3032 

https://doi.org/10.30560/hssr.v8n5p30 

 30 Published by IDEAS SPREAD 

 

The Root Causes of Political Polarization: Role of the Youth 

Alvin Li1 

1 Great Neck South High School, US 

Correspondence: Alvin Li, Great Neck South High School, Great Neck, NY, 11020, US 

 

Received: August 31, 2025; Accepted: September 12, 2025; Published: September 13, 2025 

 

Abstract 

This study aims to determine the main factor causing polarization within the United States by interviewing the 

youth population—hearing their perspective and their experience on politics. Through comprehensive literature 

analysis and evaluation of current scholarly arguments on the main cause of political polarization, I found that 

there is no single factor that causes polarization, but through a combination of all factors. Additionally, this paper 

shares the ideas and viewpoints of adolescents (ages 16-19) on current politics, which offers a glimpse of potential 

problems that the government should consider fixing. Polarization is currently on the rise and has broached major 

debates among researchers and also concerns among adolescents. 

Keywords: political polarization, adolescents, youth, root cause, politics, concern, divergence 

1. Introduction 

US society is deemed to have greatly polarized in recent decades, with a drift to political extremes (both to the 

right and to the left) and a hollowing out of the political middle. This trend is concerning for a variety of reasons, 

including partisan protests, policy swings, and bias formation.  Because of this, scholars have been interested in 

researching its root causes and possible remedies. In essence, is political polarization truly on the rise? If so, where 

and why? 

Within that perspective, a key question that has great implications for the future of this trend is about patterns of 

polarization among youth. 

The purpose of this research is to investigate the root causes of political polarization and the role of youths — 

through presenting insight of their perspectives and experiences on modern politics. The significance of this study 

is to examine how youth are affected by political polarization, as they represent our last hope for patching cracks 

of political division. We use theoretical review of the existing literature to test hypotheses about the relative 

contributions of economic, social and political influences to this trend. Furthermore, this paper takes in the opinions 

of 17 adolescents with a mean age of 17.24 on their perception of politics and what known factors have influenced 

their opinion. The paper is structured as follows: First, I critically review the definitions, dimensions and trends of 

polarization. Then, I explore the potential role of four sets of factors. Finally, I conclude with an analysis of the 

relative manifestation of this phenomenon among youth. 

2. Conceptual Background 

Polarization is defined as the growing divergence of ideologies formed between opposing societies—characterized 

by deeply conflicting opinions and distrust. It contains multiple dimensions, including economic, cultural, and 

social. In modern politics, government-elected officials aim to address these three dimensions within the scope of 

their political stance (left-leaning or right-leaning). The Republican parties (right-leaning) generally uphold 

traditional values, whereas in Democratic parties (left-leaning) open themselves up for change. Because these party 

alignments often correlate with individual values and beliefs, many have associated these alignments with their 

identities. Thus, a crystallization of difference between these two sides can fuel the debate and partisan behavior, 

and indeed at times: violence—including immigration crackdowns, “No Kings” protests, and the 125 protesters in 

the United States Capitol attack on January 6th.   

3. Trends and Background 

From the time our founding fathers created the US Constitution, it was deemed to be a single entity and the original 

constitution didn’t mention political parties. In fact, Washington’s Farewell Address stated that parties could 

present a threat to US democracy[1]. 



hssr.ideasspread.org   Humanities and Social Science Research Vol. 8, No. 5; 2025 

 31 Published by IDEAS SPREAD 

 

Arguably,  the US doesn’t even need political parties. An article from Carnegie and AP news noted that although 

Americans may disagree with one another, their opinions converge on major issues [2] [3].  

Because parties must differentiate themselves during political competitions, this tends to exacerbate perceived 

points of conflict in their proposed agendas. While the US can  form a consensus on many issues, the widening 

divide between parties threatens the possibility of future agreement. Polarization could be explained as recent 

political competitions have fueled more hostile language during political rallies, which may push this divergence. 

In the 2024 election of Trump vs Harris, news outlets note there has been increased normalization of personal 

attacks, identity questioning, and aggressive rhetoric contributing to a deeply polarized atmosphere between the 

two candidates[4]. As bipartisan cooperation becomes increasingly rare, this political discourse fuels distrust from 

the Americans and questions the government’s accountability. Elected officials have been reported to have been 

stalked, firebombed, shot, and killed not because of who they are, but what they believe and represent[5]. In order 

to understand what led to the violent behavior of individuals that led to such discourse, it is important to understand 

what has happened in the past centuries that led to the actions of these individuals.  

3.1 The Late 19th Century 

Going back into history, the 19th century marked the beginning of growing separation between parties. When 

Abraham Lincoln was elected president on November 6th, 1860, the nation was thrust into turmoil. Many southern 

states feared that his ideology of abolishing slavery would present a threat to Southern states’ traditional way of 

life as they mainly relied on agricultural labor for living. Because the Northern states had industries that were more 

developed, they didn’t rely on agriculture to support their life. Indirectly, Lincoln’s stance on slavery was 

embedded within the broader ideology of the party itself. Starting December of that year, southern states started 

seceding from the union. The start of the Civil War marked the first growing divergence of party alignment 

between the north and south. This fueled the separation of parties for the decades to come.  

3.2 The Mid-20th Century 

Politicians often mention how the start of the Civil Rights Movement in the 1960s marked the beginning of a 

pivotal contribution to polarization. During this time, individuals noted that race, cultural background, and 

geographic factors aligned with the sides of differing parties. There was a clear split between the values of each 

party. The Democratic Party was increasingly associated with progressivism, whereas the Republican Party was 

associated with conservative values in opposition to radical change. This growing divergence highlights the 

significance of demographics and background on ideological shift. To measure the extent how much ideologies 

shifted, Poole and Rosenthal developed DW-NOMINATE (Dynamic Weighted NOMINAL Three-step Estimation) 

scores to evaluate Congressional voting patterns along a spectrum. The 1960s marked the first significant DW-

NOMINATE score divide between parties, showing that there was little to no ideological overlap between the two 

parties, and that there was growing conflict over legislation at the time. Opinion polls showed that feelings toward 

one’s own party identification remained positive and steady over the past 40 years, whereas ratings for the rivalry 

showed a stronger dislike in 2020 compared to 1980. 

 
Figure 1. comparison of own-party and rival-party feelings. Data: The ANES Guide of Public Opinion and 

Electoral Behavior 



hssr.ideasspread.org   Humanities and Social Science Research Vol. 8, No. 5; 2025 

 32 Published by IDEAS SPREAD 

 

Additionally, the election of Ronald Reagan in the 1980s marked a turning point in the rise of modern conservatism. 

Compared to the Democratic policies during the Great Depression on the New Deal and Great Society through 

which FDR and LBJ expanded large-scale social programs, Reagan ran on ideas of small government, tax cuts, 

and decreasing spending of the Federal government (Reaganomics). This shows an ideological departure away 

from interventionist policies of earlier Democratic leadership.  

3.3 The 21st Century 

The last 40 years saw a substantial increase in party identification and social identification with Americans 

increasingly diverging along ideological lines. This may have coincided with the rise of technological 

advancements and the creation of new outlet platforms from the places individuals get their news source as that 

would have presented differing storytelling methods of the same situation[6]. In addition to this, The PRC (Pew 

Research Center) notes a great trend in polarization over the past 50 years. According to this study, Democrats 

have shifted left by 0.06 points along with Republicans towards the right at 0.28 points for the representatives in 

the Senate. This correlation is also found among members of the House. There has been a widening ideological 

gap between these two parties since the early 1970s, with noting that the number of moderate 

Democrats/Republicans in Congress has sharply decreased. Many sources online have mentioned that Southern 

Democrats have been increasing and turned to become more liberal where the Southern Republicans have shown 

increased conservatism[7]. 

 

Figure 2, 3 Left and right ideology scores for House and Senate conclude that Republicans have moved further 

right and Democrats further left. Data: Pew Research Center 

 

While it is true that polarization in Congress doesn’t directly mean the proportionate polarization is among civilians, 

however, their influence on the public must not be underestimated. Asisonline notes that senior officials have often 

faced criticism for decisions aligned too closely with partisan interests[8]. Aside from the reason that individuals 

may specifically target senior officials as they are more vulnerable, sources have suggested that particular 

characteristics they hold may make them a target. Compared to younger generations, senior officials may 

occasionally show a greater tendency towards reluctance to adapt, which may question the credibility of their term, 

even if their actions may not have infringed the law. Consequently, some individuals may align this issue with 

conservatism and right-sidedness. In parents, this can be seen through the desire to take control of their child as 

they become more independent, with politicians, the duality between aging and having a leadership role then 

solidifies that sense of stubbornness in office among those senior officials[9]. The claim that Congressional 

polarization aligns with public polarization is supported by other sources as well. Recent surveys confirmed that 

the percentage of Americans who identify as political moderates is at an all-time low, with most people knowing 

that they stand on the extremes[10]. Additionally, studies note that Americans who identify as politically moderate 

have hit a record low of 34%, among republicans 77% identify as conservatives, and among democrats 55% 

identify as liberal[11]. These studies show that congressional debates most likely have a significant impact on the 

general public. 



hssr.ideasspread.org   Humanities and Social Science Research Vol. 8, No. 5; 2025 

 33 Published by IDEAS SPREAD 

 

 

Figure 4. Graph based on GW Nominate scores from 1860 to 2024, matching key historical events in vertical 

lines, and average polarization index (for both parties) in blue. Data: Voteview 

 

It is helpful to note that in the earlier years, the values held by the republican and democratic parties aren't the 

same as they are in the present, which accounts for the great scale variation in years before 1960. Since the start 

of the Civil Rights Act issued after the 1960s, polarization has largely shifted and continues on today. The evidence 

for polarization within the United States can be proven by multiple studies. According to Listen First Project, 

surveys have recorded 87% of individuals feeling tired of political division, 87% say that it presents a threat to 

America, and 81% are concerned about the political divisions within our country.  

4. Theories 

Understanding the main causes of polarization requires an in-depth analysis of the economic, demographic, 

cultural, and political influences. Scholars have long debated which of these factors serves as the primary driver, 

however, evidence suggests there is no single factor that can fully explain this phenomenon. Instead, polarization 

is influenced by multiple transcending factors across categories, with each subtopic contributing a part to the 

political affiliation and behavior. While some of these factors do take on a greater influence than others, it can’t 

be given sole credit. In this section, we will discuss scholars’ research, major theories across each category, and 

explain each study’s strengths and weaknesses.  

4.1 Economic 

4.1.1 Job & Educational Polarization 

Educational inequality often corresponds to income inequality (mentioned in a later subsection)–incomes tend to 

increase with education; however, in recent years–where machinery and technological advancements have 

replaced most human jobs including manufacturing, clergy and administration roles – the members of the middle-

class have been hollowed out, with their share of income becoming growingly imbalanced[12]. 

As high-skilled, high-wage jobs stay relevant to society, those from low-skilled, low-wage jobs are facing high 

risks of displacement. The wealth gap increases the separation among individuals. From there, individuals who 

have experienced job replacement unite under the same cause because the perceived link between economic 

hardship and political choices isn’t uncommon. 

On the demand side of why voters choose populists, Benczes and Szabo, from Corvinus University of Budapest 

and Central European University, suggest the rise of populist power comes from the concern of individuals about 

potential economic hardships, including globalization through trade stocks, large influx of immigration, and the 

financial crisis of 2008. These shocks heighten the awareness of civilians and raise doubt about the mainstream 

parties that function within the United States. In addition to this, the study further states that populist parties often 

centralize their campaign strategies through the incorporation of topics regarding the members of the “elites” and 

“outsiders” as scapegoats for the potential harm that may happen within the US. Once in office, populist parties 



hssr.ideasspread.org   Humanities and Social Science Research Vol. 8, No. 5; 2025 

 34 Published by IDEAS SPREAD 

 

promise the economic recovery of the nation through expansionary fiscal and monetary policies, but fail to realize 

that these policies would only have short-term boosts and long-term crises. Through uniting the struggle of 

common civilians against elite individuals, the populist party rises through an emotional common ground. As a 

result of this perception, the formation of the populist party steps falls outside the realm of common practice. As 

the populist parties exist on both sides of political rallies, criticism would indeed only further separate Democrats 

and Republicans.  

4.1.2 Income Inequality 

Another plausible economic cause of polarization is income inequality. There has been a widely accepted claim 

that income inequality may have caused the polarization of political parties; however, there has not been enough 

evidence to generalize this polarization beyond the state level legislatures[13]. The study further improves on the 

statistical findings of how income inequality leads to political polarization, as previous scholars have not been able 

to identify the causal relationships between the two subjects. The study showed a positive relationship between 

how inequality not only pushes Democratic parties to the left, but simultaneously causes the opposition to shift to 

the right. Although the study uses Shor-McCarty ideology scores, one of the most widely accepted scores of 

measurements for comparing state legislature ideology scale, it can be argued that the data collected with state 

legislatures can not be assumed beyond that basis. In addition, the data included in the research ends in 2013, 

failing to integrate recent trends in polarization, including the years of COVID, hate-speech rallies, and the capitol 

attack. A recent study supports the claim that income inequality contributes to political polarization, using data 

from the thirty years of World Values Survey across 100 countries to explain the relationship[14]. The study 

explains that when the wealth gap widens between individuals, they feel a strong feeling of disconnect including 

viewing themselves as the “winner” or the “loser”. This in turn, increases the political divide between party groups 

as assumed that gaining/losing money has a greater effect on people’s satisfaction levels. Additionally, the study 

states that the economic status of individuals pushes them into an “us vs them” mentality that is increasingly 

popular. Moreover, inequality that separates the middle-class majority from the elite minorities, asks questions 

regarding if more money returns greater power or more people. Indeed, this study seeks to improve on previous 

research linking income inequality to polarization, which often lacked supporting evidence. However, this research 

heavily relies on data that is collected through the World Values Survey which is mainly on self-reported attitudes 

across various cultures that contain vulnerability in its reliability. The analysis of multi-continental examples may 

fail to address each issue within countries individually. The survey data taken from Europe in sync with the United 

States may not be accurate to address the US specifically.  

Let us consider the reasons why economic values may not be the root cause of political polarization. In 2009, 

Professor Cassie Mogilner from marketing and behavioral decision making conducted three separate studies 

among US adults, low-income individuals, and in a University cafe about the relationship between money, time 

and happiness. 318 US adults (ages 18-75 with an average of 35) were randomly assigned to think about the topic 

of time, money, and neutral concepts by completing a series of scrambled-word tasks. They were primed (within 

one of those three topics) to read and create sentences relating to the topic that they were assigned to. After priming, 

participants were shown a list of everyday activities, including socializing, commuting, working, etc., and were 

asked to rate how likely they were going to do this activity in the next 24 hours, along with how happy each activity 

made them feel. Participants who were primed with time-related words showed greater satisfaction performing 

socializing activities (correlated to high happiness), and those who were primed with money-related words showed 

satisfaction in working. In another study among 76 low-income individuals, the same result was concluded. 

Participants were primed in the same way as in the previous study, and participants self-reported happiness one 

week later. When focused on time, individuals value experiences, relationships, and moments. Whereas in money, 

they value material gain, productivity, and economic benefits. From this study, Mogilner concluded that subtle 

mindset shifts can change how people plan their day, and that social activities are linked to greater happiness–even 

among low-income individuals[15].  

Therefore, while economic inequality may shape how people classify themselves politically, it is not necessarily 

material wealth or poverty alone that drives political behavior, but how people perceive the value of their time and 

relationships. Because happiness is more likely derived from time than from money, affiliations of certain 

economic decisions are most likely not the core cause of polarization in the US, but rather some form of emotional 

connection. Although some may view economic promises made during political rallies as a factor intertwined with 

their emotion, however, it is proven to be false. There is a larger tangibility between the emotional influence on 

voting and over economic policies that politicians offer. It should be noted that although economic decisions may 

act as a prominent factor shaping political decisions and separation, it’s not a leading one.  

 



hssr.ideasspread.org   Humanities and Social Science Research Vol. 8, No. 5; 2025 

 35 Published by IDEAS SPREAD 

 

4.2 Demographic Explanations 

4.2.1 Population Shifts and Distribution 

Statistical findings suggest that a region’s demographic makeup could play an influential role in polarization within 

the United States. When there is a significant change in the population volume of particular racial or ethnic groups, 

political leaders often seize their chance of winning or switching sides on their beliefs. Politicians often highlight 

particular traits in majority populations and mention policies satisfying these populations. From this, the minority 

population within those regions may feel alienated and perceive their interest as disregarded. In addition to this, 

different racial and ethnic groups hold distinct views on a variety of topics. Often, these views have defining 

contrasts. The increase in minority representation in Congress that doesn’t uphold traditional values fuels 

controversial debates. Indeed, demographic explanations for political polarization are well supported. In February 

of 2020, Levi Boxell–a student from Stanford University Institute for Research in Social Science–constructed 

seven measures of polarization and found a convincing correlation between political polarization within the United 

States to demographic changes. Boxell uses regression models to estimate each demographic group’s propensity 

for polarization using American National Election Studies (ANES) data from 1984-2016. Key findings presented 

a 34% increase in polarization between these years, attributed to demographic factors alone. The strongest driver 

factors were education, religion, and age, while other ones, including income, gender, and race, had little to no 

effect. Boxell’s study had some limitations, though. It was assumed the polarization index for all years after 1984 

was fixed at the same level, which may not have been the finest year for data collection, as it was before major 

changes in infrastructure, media, and political discourse. Assuming the 1984 data as the basis of which other years 

were compared may present misleading results that may have overly attributed population shifts as the main 

component for polarization. Indeed there are qualifications, but this still provides a strong suit of potential causes 

of polarization. The fixed-data comparison approach allowed him to gain a baseline understanding of what to 

expect for the years to come, and what could potentially fuel change in future years. ⅓ times increase through 

population shifts undoubtedly suggests although there could be flaws within the data collection, there is a 

prominent factor. The framework offers a rigorous way of presenting polarization and offers a strong argument for 

demographic changes to be the cause of division [16].  

4.2.2 Generational Divides 

When taking into account individuals’ values and traits in political rallies, it is important to note their characteristic 

and personal background as well. Researchers Ahlfeldt et al. analyzed generational gaps using postelection survey 

data of 300 Swiss referendums over the course of four decades (1981-2017). Using an unconstrained panel rank 

regression approach, the methodology allowed them to separately distinguish age with other cohort influences of 

political attitudes. The study found that aging increased their sense of conservatism because – one, when policies 

change, they are unable to garner future benefits as their age is the limitation; two, prioritizing and preserving 

policies that they currently have before radical change[17]. The study explained that it wasn’t just the “status-quo 

bias” that caused these individuals to feel this way, but because of their life horizons and need for comfort. Indeed, 

others may argue that this may be attributed to constant environmental policies issued by the government in 

Switzerland that have presented some short-term drawbacks for the elderly and can’t be attributed to the US, 

however, statistical data from PRRI (Public Religion Research Institute) shows similar polarization measures. Gen 

Z adults (under 30) show a 28% lower chance of identifying themselves as conservative[18]. Indeed, later 

populations present more left-leaning ideologies compared to elders that feel more conservative feelings over time. 

4.2.3 Educational Accessibility 

Education has long since been a strong argument for political polarization, not only because of higher and lower 

educational attainments, but higher education presents more knowledge on aspects of parties that individuals could 

debate about. At last, no single party is perfect. Educators often lean on more progressive sides and promote social 

change as they aim at globalization through classes of social justice, equity, and inclusion [19].  

Without the appropriate provisions to these academic resources, viewpoints from the opposing party may be 

limited to follow logistics, typically not much in depth.  

Voting can be a sign of education and intellectual capability. A study by Nicholas Janetos from the Penn Institute 

for Economic Research explains that educated individuals vote off the basis that they have a better understanding 

of who the more qualified candidate is[20].  From this, people with lower-education want to also demonstrate this 

capability through voting. So no, participation in politics doesn’t require educational background, but good 

participation does. The access to education swings the views of politics to the left or right. Within “The Diploma 

Divide” article in Michigan State University, researchers show that white voters without a college degree were 

significantly more likely to vote Republican, while those educated voted Democratic[21]. Although there is no 



hssr.ideasspread.org   Humanities and Social Science Research Vol. 8, No. 5; 2025 

 36 Published by IDEAS SPREAD 

 

effort to criticize either political stances, this claim has been backed up by numerous other studies. Pew Research 

finds that among white voters without a bachelor's degree, individuals vote Republican by a 63% to 33% majority. 

For those with a degree, the split is more closely aligned with 47% (Republican) to 51% (Democratic)[22]. This 

shows that individuals can make more conscious decisions through their access to education. In the recent election, 

hostile and sexist attitudes measured in national polls showed a tangible effect on voter support. Compared to those 

who may have received education regarding the important role of women and ideas of feminism, such correlation 

wouldn’t appear. The survey found those with lower levels of sexist attitudes were much more likely to support 

Harris, while those with strongly hostile views towards women overwhelmingly supported Trump. Researchers 

concluded that hostile sexism played a greater role in shaping the electorate in 2024 than in previous cycles, 

particularly after Harris became the Democratic nominee[23]. 

As seen, education plays an influential role in voting behavior, and a consequence of demographic alignment to 

party stance. Like mentioned before, access to education correlates with job placement as well. Those of higher-

paying jobs would most likely vote for policies with lower taxation on the elites, while those with lower-paying 

jobs may do the exact opposite. Demographic factors that group Americans within certain traits is a reason for 

separation[22]. 

4.3 Cultural Explanations 

4.3.1 Impact of Social Media 

The rise of social media has had a significant contribution to polarization as well. Dating to times back before 

social media, the rise of technological advancement like news networks and TV platforms hold strong arguments 

for this to be the main cause of polarization (comparison of figure 1 and technological advancement is below).  

 



hssr.ideasspread.org   Humanities and Social Science Research Vol. 8, No. 5; 2025 

 37 Published by IDEAS SPREAD 

 

 

Figure 4, 5. Comparison of rise of televisions vs GW nominate (polarization) scores. Data: Sweeney, taken from 

The History of Television 

 

From the CS website built by Cornell students, as of 1967 there were 98% of individuals who have TVs in their 

household. This new technology provided a new means of communication  through broadcasting events 

(including politics). The 1960s sparked the beginning of growing divergence of government structure in the US. 

Indeed, the exponential growth of TV ownership doesn’t match the trend line of linear growth of GW Nominate 

scores, however, such lines don’t require the same geographic shape to support each other. TV production acts as 

the structural enabler of polarization. Television brought politics home in a way that newspapers never did, the 

more exposure towards ideologies faced by parties have fueled the steady growth of divergence. TV didn’t make 

us more divergent, but rather, more vulnerable to divergence as we are exposed to more bias: the same way other 

technologies do. In recent years, as technological advancements and social media become personalized, we see a 

positive correlation between it and polarization.  

 

Figure 6. Number of users on social media from 2004-2008. Directly taken: Statista and TNW, taken from Our 

World In Data 



hssr.ideasspread.org   Humanities and Social Science Research Vol. 8, No. 5; 2025 

 38 Published by IDEAS SPREAD 

 

Our World in Data explores the number of active users per year on various social media platforms and reports that 

almost all most-top 10 platforms (of the most popular online) have increased their user base compared to previous 

years[24]. This could be explained by the operation mode of these platforms. The action of scrolling, stated by the 

National Library of Medicine, releases small doses of dopamine in the brain[25]. In result, this can be habit-

forming due to the variable and uncertain nature of online rewards. Satisfaction earned from messages, likes, and 

posts are only a couple examples of this phenomenon. Studies from University of Minnesota Twin Cities notes 

dopamine is the main driver of all human decisions[26]. For actions that require the same amount of effort, we 

make decisions that provide more satisfaction. 

In more advanced methods of calculating user-interest for them to stay on the app longer, algorithms like FYP 

(For You Pages) on social media promote tend to emphasize values that the user already shares. Through re-

emphasizing the claims of the user and what the user wants to hear, social media makes their users hooked. This 

is a problem, however, especially in the world of politics. Through getting their claims re-emphasized, individuals 

are more stubborn to what they believe in and have a disinterest in hearing the opposing opinion. Additionally, in 

order to attract attention, FYPs promote content that focuses on partisan behavior. Alarming protests or claims 

stick out from the platform and get promoted as some may find it interesting to watch. In fact, politicians may use 

this partisan behavior to fuel their campaign. There has been a marked increase in the mentioning and use of 

partisan language and behavior in political speeches over the past few decades [27].  

That being said, those who watch those content would hear their claims more often, then ultimately, side with their 

stance—known as the infamous echo chamber—separating people. 

Social media isn’t the only source of media that present misinformation and fuel partisanship. Even the most 

credible journals and newspapers do the same.  

 
Figure 7. Level of bias from news/tv outlets. Directly taken: AllSides Media 

 

AllSides Media explores the left and right-hand bias from news networks and aims to present stories told from 

unbiased perspectives. Ultimately, it’s almost like we don’t know “what is real” anymore [28].  



hssr.ideasspread.org   Humanities and Social Science Research Vol. 8, No. 5; 2025 

 39 Published by IDEAS SPREAD 

 

4.3.2 Identity Classification 

Identification of race, gender, and religion have the potential to connect self-qualities to political affiliation. In 

recent years, we’ve incorporated our personal values and background in choosing political parties to vote based 

on identity. Political parties are now part of who we are. In recent years, political affiliation has evolved from 

being a mere preference to a core aspect of personal identity and self-expression[2][29][30]. Research shows that 

race is the most significant predictor of party identification. The background of where individuals came from has 

much to do what values they align themselves with[22]. For example, those belonging within the ethnic minority 

mainly vote Democratic including Hispanic, Asian, and Black. Those that vote Republican, on the other hand, 

consist of mainly Whites.  

 
Figure 8. Comparison of racial background vs party choice. Data: Pew Research Center 

 

The chart above tracks the party identification among racial ethnic groups. The vertical axis represents the 

estimated percentage of the total group population that supports either party and trend line connecting years from 

1994 to 2023. Among racial groups, voting patterns of race and party alignment have become rather consistent 

over time. From 1994 to 2023 for all four ethnic groups, we can see a difference of 12% Democratic shift for 

Asians; 5% Republican shift for Hispanics; 4% Republican shift for Blacks; and 55% consistent Republican vote 

for Whites[22]. Decisions to act a particular way or to perform a certain action related to personal political belief 

(such as protests, riots, violence, and chaos) is shown to be influenced by in-group and out-group dynamics[2]. 

The Social identity Theory shows that people’s behaviors are shaped by interpersonal interaction (one on one) and 

intergroup interaction (identification with a large group of people and the interaction between other groups).  

4.4 Political Explanations 

4.4.1 Political Corruption 

The rise of social elites taking control within government policies has recently outraged many Americans. This 

divide is exacerbated by the economic status among individuals. In the latest 2024 election, Musk (a multi-

billionaire entrepreneur) donated approximately $75 million to a pro-Trump political action committee (American 

PAC) and has reportedly spent over $270 million supporting Trump and other Republican candidates during the 

election cycle. Additionally, on March 20th, 2025, Musk awarded Wisconsin voters who signed the petition “in 

opposition to activist judges”, or rather, in support of the Republican party $100[31]. When Trump took office in 



hssr.ideasspread.org   Humanities and Social Science Research Vol. 8, No. 5; 2025 

 40 Published by IDEAS SPREAD 

 

January of 2025, he thanked Musk for his efforts to help him win the election. In exchange, Trump created the 

Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) to give Musk influence, which caused public outcry. Musk 

stepping into politics aside from his prior image as a tech innovator drew concern about his expertise [32][33].  

This perceived political corruption eroded public trust and also reshaped public debates on TV and online, a crime 

of increasing influence of social media. Take the Watergate Scandal, for example. In hopes of renewing his 

presidency, Richard Nixon (Republican) allegedly hired burglars to break into the Watergate Office Complex 

where important campaign strategies by the DNC (Democratic National Committee) resided. Later, when tape-

recordings were found in the oval office about his conversation of the plan, Nixon eventually resigned in the face 

of impeachment. From the starting to the end of Nixon’s presidency, public trust within the government dropped 

from 62% in 1968 to 36% in 1974[34].  

 
Figure 9. Trust within the US government. Data: Pew Research Center 

 

4.4.2 Hottest Debates 

The connection between disagreement and opinion has long been a strong factor in shaping the tenor of political 

debates and polarization. The issue is whether people can calmly debate hot topics such as, gender identity, 

immigration, gun rights, healthcare reform, and taxation just to name a few. Because these arguments often form 

the structure of people’s fundamental way of life, many argue that the differing opinions among them have caused 

parties to diverge. Indeed, the differences between Democratic and Republican party values are clear, however, 

individuals may not agree with every value of their party. The individuals that fall under this grey are, however, 

have decreased overtime as influenced by economic, demographic, and cultural factors mentioned, causing this 

polarization to take place. Polarization happens not because individuals share and agree with all values that a 

particular party holds, but rather, because they value some ideologies over others. Core values including the rights 

to develop a democracy under the original constitution seems to still be in common agreement no matter the 

political party. There is a small variance between how Democratic and Republican parties believe when it comes 

to the Bill of Rights including right to vote at 91% agreement, the freedom of speech at 90% agreement, and right 

to privacy at 88% agreement[3]. 

Granted, saying that Americans actually share the same values on major debates may sound far-fetched, but there 

are some nuances that stand out. When it comes to gun policy, the majority of Republicans and Democrats support 

background checks for all gun sales[35]. When talking about healthcare, the majority supports lowering 

prescription drug prices and protecting people with pre-existing conditions[36]. Although Americans may disagree 

on the language of climate change, many Americans support investment in clean energy[37]. These are all 

examples of agreements of Americans from a cross-party basis. So then, why does America still feel separated? 

Well, due to the factors concerning media, politicians, and the interest of individuals, the differences between 

parties are emphasized. It is possible for Americans to unite, we just have to stop highlighting our differences.  

 

 



hssr.ideasspread.org   Humanities and Social Science Research Vol. 8, No. 5; 2025 

 41 Published by IDEAS SPREAD 

 

5. Impact of the Youth 

5.1 Main Causes of Divergence 

In addressing the level of polarization among the United States, I tested the views among a small sample of youth. 

The survey was conducted at random for individuals willing to answer questions regarding politics within the US 

where they answered questions regarding how polarized the nation feels along with their personal opinions. 

Additionally, 3 people demonstrated willingness to have a conversation 1 on 1 regarding politics, and share their 

perspective beyond the survey. In the general survey with a sample size of 17, the mean age of individuals was 

calculated at 17.24 while all age groups fell under the 16-19 age bracket. In addressing “How polarized do you 

think US is today?”  85.4% of responses said either very polarized, or extremely polarized and 100% of the 

surveyed responses said polarization level from moderately polarized up. 

 
Figure 9. Percentage of youth that believe the US is polarized and to what extent polarized 

 

This information indicates that polarization is not strictly confined in demographic age groups but can also be felt 

to permeate into younger generations. This is why demographic factors have been suggested not to be one of the 

main causes of polarization. Additionally, youth adolescents responded with a 58.8% agreement on the country 

feeling “extremely divided”. In studying the correlation between the cause of polarization and specific entities that 

would make youth populations feel this way, I asked ways that get their news information. Unsurprisingly to the 

study of the main cause of polarization, social media and News/TV were mentioned at 82.4% and 76.5% 

respectively.  

 

Figure 10. Percentage of youth that select factors relating to how they obtain political news 



hssr.ideasspread.org   Humanities and Social Science Research Vol. 8, No. 5; 2025 

 42 Published by IDEAS SPREAD 

 

This finding reveals cultural explanations to be a significant contributor towards feelings of polarization. In a 

separate question, 54% of our surveyed teenagers mentioned how media coverage is the first thing that comes to 

mind when polarization is mentioned.  Among the youth population, we started living our lives in the digital age 

of computers and smart phones. Therefore, it would not be uncommon for us to feel this rivalry feeling (in fact, 

separation can be more pronounced within the youth population) among debates regarding politics as we expose 

ourselves to social media and televisions. 

5.2 Cross-Party Marriage 

Although it might seem early, we asked our participants about the chances they would marry their partner if they 

were from a different political party. When addressing cross-party marriage, interesting statistics came up. Granted, 

individuals may argue the reliability of a survey among adolescents from a sample size of 17 could present 

inaccurate data collection, but our statistics suggest not. In comparison to a survey conducted among adults by 

Facing History in 2019, we saw significant similarities.  

 

 

Figure 11, 12. Percentage of youth that do not mind marriage and party affiliation; Percentage of parents that do 

mind marriage and party affiliation. Source: Facing History (12) 



hssr.ideasspread.org   Humanities and Social Science Research Vol. 8, No. 5; 2025 

 43 Published by IDEAS SPREAD 

 

When considering the opposite percentage of individuals that would be happy or have no opinion on such matters, 

a side by side comparison between parent marriage preference and youth marriage preference differ minimally.  

 

Figure 13. Comparison of the percentages of youth/parents that are fine with opposite party marriage 

 

Speaking of cross-party marriage, it turns out, we aren’t significantly separated by our political beliefs even if we 

might feel like it. Indeed, in current cases like the marriage of Kellyanne Conway (senior advisor of Donald Trump) 

and George Conway (a conservative who often criticize Trump) eventually broke up, however, in cases of the 

marriage James Carville (Democrat) and Marty Matalin (Republican), who have been married from 1993 onward, 

can’t be explained by party rivalry feelings. Although it is true that Democratic and Republican parties hold 

separate ideas, we can still work together. One of our interviews said:  

“I think leftists tend to be more angry at conservative beliefs. We saw this with what occurred at Tesla 

dealerships during Musk’s time with the Trump Administration, the assassination attempts at Trump, and 

more. Though I think that there are discrepancies, we all still live in a country where opposing beliefs can 

still live in harmony” 

Indeed we could work together to build on a better nation, there is a twist. Among the youth population, we can 

still see discrimination of party alignment to what we think of the individual.  

“I sometimes unconsciously change my attitude when I hear someone is affiliated with some party that I 

support…or don’t” says another interviewer.  

64.6% surveyed individuals agreed that their view also changed when hearing someone is aligned with a party. As 

of now, it almost seems like the US is separated by nature.  

6. Conclusion 

Throughout the past 40 years, the US has increasingly polarized into the left-leaning and the right-leaning parties. 

The evidence presented in this research makes it clear that polarization is not a waning, but lived reality across 

generations. Polarization is not only happening to Congress, but to the general American public as well. Through 

the experiences described by our youth groups and literary analysis of scholar papers polarization is felt 

everywhere within the US.  

The cause of this separation is fueled by a mix of demographic, cultural, and political factors that influence an 

individual's party alignment. When putting all these factors into consideration, we have seen a significant 

contribution of polarization by the cultural explanation: the rise of social media, advancement in technology, and 

background classification. This result is also present among the youth population. Through a survey with a sample 

size of 17 teenagers ranging from the ages 16-19 and interviews conducted from particular participants willing to 

share their experience, culture explanation is the most justified. Indeed this is true, however, it should be noted 

that there is no single factor that contributes to the polarization of the US as a whole. This study conducted among 



hssr.ideasspread.org   Humanities and Social Science Research Vol. 8, No. 5; 2025 

 44 Published by IDEAS SPREAD 

 

the youth population shows the significant divergence that is happening to the US now and in the future. From this 

study, it should be our first priority in fixing polarization problems with social media first as it is the most 

prominent. The feeling of divergence between the parties in the US has to come to a central consensus.  

Indeed the concern for our future should be painted with color, but at the same time, we can fix this rather easily, 

it just takes time. Americans share the same general values that align with each other and it actually isn’t as separate 

as we think it is. We have to learn how to work together and build a stronger nation no matter our political 

affiliation. If adolescents today can see beyond party labels and engage in cultural collaboration, then the future 

of America is not defined by divides but by celebrating our differences.  

References 

[1]U.S. Senate, Washington's Farewell Address, S. Misc. Doc. No. 115-5, 1st Sess., at 1-26 (Dec., 2017). 

https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/resources/pdf/Washingtons_Farewell_Address.pdf 

[2]Kleinfeld, R. (2023, September 5). Polarization, Democracy, and Political Violence in the United States: What 

the Research Says. https://carnegieendowment.org/research/2023/09/polarization-democracy-and-political-

violence-in-the-united-states-what-the-research-says?lang=en 

[3]Fields, G., & Thomson-Deveaux, A. (2024, April 3). Yes, We're Divided, but New AP-NORC Poll Shows 

Americans Still Agree on Most Core American Values. Retrieved August 29, 2025, from 

https://apnews.com/article/ap-poll-democracy-rights-freedoms-election-

b1047da72551e13554a3959487e5181a. 

[4]Stirrat, C., & Abbondanza, J. (2024, October 17). Why the war of words in US politics hits harder than in 

Australia. Retrieved August 29, 2025, from https://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/why-the-war-of-words-in-

us-politics-hits-harder-than-in-australia/b3wd8ekdc. 

[5]McCormick, C. B. (2025, June 23). The Price of Our Divisions: Rage, Rhetoric, and Political Violence in 

America. Independent Voter News. Retrieved August 29, 2025, from https://ivn.us/posts/price-our-divisions-

rage-rhetoric-and-political-violence-america-2025-06-23. 

[6]Ojer, J., Carcamo, D., Pastor-Satorras, R., & Starnini, M. (2025). Charting Multidimensional Ideological 

Polarization Across Demographic Groups in the USA. Nature Human Behavior. 

https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-025-02251-0. 

[7]DeSilver, D. (2022, March 10). The Polarization in Today's Congress Has Roots That Go Back Decades. Pew 

Research Center. Retrieved August 29, 2025, from https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2022/03/10/the-

polarization-in-todays-congress-has-roots-that-go-back-decades/. 

[8]Gates, M. (2025, March 10). Unwell: National Survey Finds Americans Are Polarized and Distrustful. ASIS 

International. https://www.asisonline.org/security-management-magazine/articles/2025/03/pandemic-

readiness/polarized-distrustful-culture/. 

[9]Blue Ridge Assisted Living & Memory Care. (2022, January 22). Stubbornness In Elderly Parents: 

Understanding The Cause. https://blueridgeassistedliving.com/georgia-assisted-living-blog/stubbornness-in-

elderly-parents-understanding-the-causes/. 

[10]Brenan, M. (2025, January 16). U.S. Political Parties Historically Polarized Ideologically. Gallup. 

https://news.gallup.com/poll/655190/political-parties-historically-polarized-ideologically.aspx. 

[11]Wikipedia contributors. (2025, August 23). Political Polarization in the United States. Wikipedia. Retrieved 

August 29, 2025, from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_polarization_in_the_United_States. 

[12]Salvatori, A., & Manfredi, T. (2019, July 16). Job Polarisation and the Middle Class: New Evidence on the 

Changing Relationship Between Skill Levels and Household Income Levels from 18 OECD Countries 

(Report No. 232). Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. 

https://doi.org/10.1787/4bf722db-en. 

[13]Voorheis, J., McCarty, N., & Shor, B. (2015, August 23). Unequal Incomes, Ideology and Gridlock: How 

Rising Inequality Increases Political Polarization [Unpublished working paper]. 

https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2649215. 

[14]Gu, Y., & Wang, Z. (2021). Income Inequality and Global Political Polarization. Social Sciences. PubMed 

Central (PMC). https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8608558/. 

[15]Mogilner, C. (2011, August 2). The Pursuit of Happiness: Time, Money, and Social Connection [Unpublished 

working paper]. SSRN. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1903511. 



hssr.ideasspread.org   Humanities and Social Science Research Vol. 8, No. 5; 2025 

 45 Published by IDEAS SPREAD 

 

[16]Boxell, L. (2020, June 2). Demographic Change and Political Polarization in the United States [Unpublished 

working paper]. SSRN. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3148805. 

[17]Ahlfeldt, G. M., Maennig, W., & Mueller, S. Q. (2022). The generation gap in direct democracy: Age vs. cohort 

effects. European Journal of Political Economy, 72, 102120. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejpoleco.2021.102120. 

[18]PRRI Staff. (2024, January 11). A Political and Cultural Glimpse Into America's Future: Generation Z's Views 

on Generational Change and the Challenges and Opportunities Ahead. Public Religion Research Institute 

(PRRI). https://prri.org/research/generation-zs-views-on-generational-change-and-the-challenges-and-

opportunities-ahead-a-political-and-cultural-glimpse-into-americas-

future/#:~:text=More%20than%20half%20of%20Gen%20Z%20teens%20(51%25)%20do,44%25)%20ident

ify%20as%20moderate. 

[19]Hess, D. (2005). How Do Teachers' Political Views Influence Teaching about Controversial Issues? Social 

Education, 69(1), 47-48. https://www.socialstudies.org/system/files/publications/articles/se_6901047.pdf. 

[20]Janetos, N. (2017, May 16). Voting as a Signal of Education. SSRN. 

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2968531. 

[21]Vallejo, E. (2021, March). The 'Diploma Divide': Does It Exist for Racial and Ethnic Minorities? Institute for 

Public Policy and Social Research (IPPSR) – Michigan State University. Retrieved August 29, 2025, from 

https://ippsr.msu.edu/public-policy/michigan-wonk-blog/diploma-divide-does-it-exist-racial-and-ethnic-

minorities. 

[22]Pew Research Center. (2024, April 9). Changing Partisan Coalitions in a Politically Divided Nation. Retrieved 

August 29, 2025, from https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2024/04/09/partisanship-by-race-ethnicity-and-

education/ 

[23]Eichen, A., Rhodes, J., & Nteta, T. (2024, August 16). Could Americans' sexism tank yet another woman's 

quest for the U.S. presidency? AP Photo/Charles Rex Arbogast US voters say they're ready for a woman 

president − but sexist attitudes still go along with opposition to Harris. The Conversation. 

https://theconversation.com/us-voters-say-theyre-ready-for-a-woman-president-but-sexist-attitudes-still-go-

along-with-opposition-to-harris-236754. 

[24]Ortiz-Ospina, E. (2019, September 18). The rise of social media. Our World in Data (OWID). 

https://ourworldindata.org/rise-of-social-media. 

[25]Sharpe, B., & Spooner, R. (2025). Dopamine-scrolling: A modern public health challenge requiring urgent 

attention. Perspectives in Public Health, 145(4), 190-191. https://doi.org/10.1177/17579139251331914. 

[26]University of Minnesota – Twin Cities. (2025, February 25). How Dopamine Affects Decisions. Retrieved 

August 29, 2025, from https://twin-cities.umn.edu/news-events/how-dopamine-affects-decisions. 

[27]Crawford, K. (2016, July 19). American Political Speech Is Increasingly Partisan, Stanford Research Shows. 

Stanford Report. Retrieved August 29, 2025, from https://news.stanford.edu/stories/2016/07/american-

political-speech-increasingly-partisan-stanford-research-shows. 

[28]Pazzanese, C. (2020, June 3). When We Can't Even Agree on What Is Real. The Harvard Gazette. Retrieved 

August 29, 2025, from https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2020/06/study-finds-political-bias-skews-

perceptions-of-verifiable-fact/.  

[29]Zajnal, Z. (2023, October 10). How Did We Get Here: Understanding the Demographic Sources of America's 

Party Divisions (Shaping the Democracy of Tomorrow). Protect Democracy. 

https://protectdemocracy.org/work/understanding-the-demographic-sources-of-americas-party-divisions/.   

[30]Ward, A. (2024, April 11). Understanding and Addressing Social Polarization Between Distinct Groups in 

America: Can We Bridge The Gap? Democratic erosion Consortium. Retrieved August 29, 2025, from 

https://democratic-erosion.org/2024/04/11/understanding-and-addressing-social-polarization-between-

distinct-groups-in-america-can-we-bridge-the-gap/.  

[31]Schleifer, T. (2025, March 20). Musk offers $100 to Wisconsin Voters, Bringing Back a Controversial Tactic. 

The New York Times. Retrieved August 29, 2025, from 

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/20/us/politics/elon-musk-wisconsin-petition.html. 

[32]Basu, Z. (2025, June 5). Musk Goes Nuclear: "Without Me, Trump Would Have Lost the Election." Axios. 

Retrieved August 29, 2025.https://www.axios.com/2025/06/05/elon-musk-trump-election-bill. 

[33]Gangitano, A. (2025, June 5). Musk says Trump would have lost election without him. The Hill. Retrieved 



hssr.ideasspread.org   Humanities and Social Science Research Vol. 8, No. 5; 2025 

 46 Published by IDEAS SPREAD 

 

August 29, 2025, from https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/5335049-elon-musk-criticizes-trump/. 

[34]Pew Research Center. (2024, June 24). Public Trust in Government: 1958-2024. Retrieved August 29, 2025, 

from https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2024/06/24/public-trust-in-government-1958-2024/. 

[35]Everytown Research & Policy. (2024, May 10). Update Background Check Laws. 

https://everytownresearch.org/report/update-background-check-laws/. 

[36]Rosenthal, E. (2021, November 16). Public Opinion Is Unified on Lowering Prescription Drug Prices — Why 

Are Democrats Settling for Less? Los Angeles Times. Retrieved August 29, 2025, from 

https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2021-11-16/public-opinion-prescription-drug-prices. 

[37]Solar Energy Industries Association. (2024, September 10). New Poll Reveals Overwhelming Support for 

Federal Clean Energy Incentives. https://seia.org/news/new-poll-reveals-overwhelming-support-for-federal-

clean-energy-incentives/. 

 

Copyrights 

Copyright for this article is retained by the author(s), with first publication rights granted to the journal. 

This is an open-access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution 

license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). 


