Political Polarization
By: Nate Watts
On July 13th, 2024, Donald Trump, while at a campaign stop in Pennsylvania, was shot in the ear. His survival may have helped him win re-election, but it also testifies to the danger of political violence in this nation.
On June 14th of this year, two Minnesota lawmakers were targeted in their homes, with Melissa Hortman, the leader of the state House Democratic caucus, losing her life alongside her husband. Since that killing, the makeup of the state legislature has shifted from an even 67 Republicans and 67 Democrats to 67 R and 66 D. A Democratic state senator was also targeted in the attacks in an attempt to create a Republican majority there, too. The same day, the Texas state capitol was evacuated due to “credible threats” against lawmakers.
In recent years, the percentage of Americans who view polarization as a “critical threat to democracy” has risen from 40% in 2010 to over 80% as of last year. Many people believe that this moment is the most polarized our nation has ever been. However, the United States has dealt with political polarization before. The founders envisioned a system dominated by deliberative and legislative compromise meant to consider the best path forward for the nation. Just as they navigated worsening political strife, we can do the same.
Excluding the American Civil War, the end of the 18th century might be the moment when our country was most divided. Immediately after the passage of the Constitution, early Americans were tasked with navigating how to build a nation, pay off debts, establish credibility, and cooperate internationally. Entering the 1790s, US politicians began adopting the same rhetoric, language, and attacks against their adversaries that we see today.
The two political parties vying for political prominence in the 1790s were the Federalists, led by Washington, Adams, and Hamilton, and the Democratic-Republicans of Jefferson, Madison, and Monroe. Each side claimed the other wanted to sink the young nation. Both parties attacked the other. Hamilton was described as “monarchical” and exhibiting "aristocratic" behavior. Federalists called Democrats “disorganizers” of government and supporters of bloodshed (in reference to their support of France amidst its revolution).
Both parties used newspapers as a primary means of slandering those of their fellow Americans whom they termed political “enemies.” Attacks against the other “faction” worked to stir up political polarization comparable to what the nation currently suffers from. Divisions over what course of action the US should take regarding the French Revolution prompted the sitting president, John Adams, to pass the Alien and Sedition Acts. These four laws criminalized dissent against the US government and limited immigration (especially from France). The president could deport any non-citizen deemed dangerous or from a nation the US was at war with. Many read these acts as targeting political opposition from the Democratic Republicans.
The response came in the form of the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions, which called for the nullification of the Alien and Sedition Acts. Keep in mind that this call for nullification came before Marbury v. Madison established Judicial Review, allowing the Supreme Court to strike down laws as Unconstitutional. Political polarization no longer existed solely in the realm of newspapers; instead, it began to have real legislative consequences.
The contentious election of 1800 represented the culmination of this political discourse. Aaron Burr (the representative of the Federalists) ran against Thomas Jefferson (of the Democratic-Republicans) for the presidency. The election resulted in an electoral college tie, which went to the House of Representatives for resolution. When Thomas Jefferson finally won the election as the third president, his swearing-in marked the first transfer of political power between different parties.
More importantly, though, compromises in the House represented real steps towards repairing the American political process. James A. Bayard, the lone representative from Delaware, changed his vote in the House to a “no selection” to break the tie. Prominent Federalists, such as Hamilton, appealed to members of the House to convince them of the importance of compromise. Besides the fact that Hamilton had personal issues with Burr, his message of compromise remains essential. Jefferson himself wrote that governance “requires much compromise of opinion” should it hope to function.
As our forefathers understood more than two centuries ago, compromise and the recognition of good ideas are what propel American greatness. America should now look inward for help in healing its current divisions. Remembering that compromise, diplomacy, and conversation make us Americans more than our race, religion, ethnicity, or political party is a first step towards bridging the gap. Bipartisanship still exists in the United States. For instance, in Washington state, nearly 96% of bills passed in 2024 received bipartisan support.
America has no use for political violence. June 14th’s events reaffirm what we already knew on July 13th of last year. Political parties may be here to stay. Political discourse should replace the prospect of political weaponization. Until then, we may continue down a road of badgering, accusations, and bloodshed.
