America’s Wide Divisions – March 9 2026

Roughly a month ago we had a conversation on polarization, an entry point worthy of expansion with this conversation on the distance between Republicans and Democrats in our duopolistic political system. In that prior conversation the focus was on origins of the modern era goal to divide the nation into “us vs. them” mentality for the self-serving interests of political party entrenchment.

For the purposes of this conversation, the intention is to put some context around this with both polling and “studies” but also political party litmus tests. Those questions with expected answers now that the issues of the day are discussed nationally with expected narratives being handed down from the Republican and Democratic Parties right to a complicit mainstream media apparatus.

Which is to argue, intentionally division oriented politics.

Another examination point naturally being how each party crafts a narrative designed to be polarizing on any number of issues, commonly addressed Congress to Congress and President to President but never really considered solved.

Current Conditions

One place to start is with recent polls and studies, you could say from the usual suspects but at least consider Gallup reporting and a handful of outputs from Pew Research Center. Perhaps a few others.

Just some raw stats to get us going…

For the purpose of addressing “ideological extremism” then consider that in 2024 for those identifying solidly as Republican about 77% of them identify as conservative (look at the term as a benchmark for mainstream Republican) and for Democrats 55% of them identify as liberal (same standard.) The why this is important is for both it was at record highs, and also important to note an election season but arguably one that split the nation into two solid camps.

Also at record highs, the identification of “very conservative” or “very liberal.” All too easy to argue that is the furthest right and furthest left who tend to make the most noise but are also the very demographic appealed to in primaries. Hold onto that point for a moment.

Conversely to this, and eye-opening for this conversation, the idea of identifying as “moderate” Republican or “moderate” Democrat has fallen, to the point that being solidly in either camp is outpacing those who “lean” one direction or the other.

Now, to make this a real mess, just this January Gallup reported that framing this in the context of identifying as Republican, or Democrat, or Party Independent showed that Independents are also at record high levels. As low as 31% in 2004, but as of the end of 2025 that shot up to 45%. Republicans and Democrats at a statistical tie of about 27% (yes, the calculations and margin of error allows that to not add up to 100 and don’t bother going down the rabbit hole on why.)

Predictably, this gets very messy and very quickly when Gallup and others reframe everyone again with “Republican-leaning independents” or “Democratic-leaning independents” as if to suggest an olive branch to a segment of voters that tend to vote for one party or the other but can be moved depending on candidate, issues up for discussion, various conditions, what have you.

The real takeaway being, Republicans and Democrats have become more entrenched and further divided from one another leaving a record level of voters out there entirely alienated from both parties. The swing voters, issue(s) voters, non-party loyalists that both the Republican and Democratic Parties try to appeal to in a general election, or we see polling efforts to get respondents inline one or the other, but at the same time they all hold in contempt for failing all these litmus tests.

Question – So, who are all these people?

Admittedly, a trick question, the answer is more like who they are not.

One way to consider looking at this is to bring up all the time we did in Philosophy when asking ourselves any number of question on how people can be divided and/or controlled (yes, phrased that way on purpose.)

In you were sitting in a Philosophy class asking yourselves “what is the purpose of having Political parties” after consideration odds are you will land on some combination of aggregation of interests (or reduction of choice,) critical perspective for solutioning (or removal of individual noise,) and accountability to who is represented (or control over who is represented.) It comes down to how one looks at these things, the positive angles to the negative angles based on application, but no matter where in the thinking the net result is structural organization. One might be compelled to look at this as a method of social and ideological cohesion, the organization of a right and wrong way to look at each issue of importance.

The irony being, if you asked a similar question “what is the purpose of having religion” the answers you land on are strikingly similar.

To begin to answer who all these people are not, this larger number of voters who have checked out from listening to Republicans and Democrats, means looking at how independents view issues against the rhetoric as sourced from more concrete bases from both parties. But, it also means added skepticism and rejection of a core principle of duopolistic political systems in that all choices are binary.

Meaning, that each conclusion or solution offered from Democrats or Republicans are mutually exclusive alternatives, the basis of a litmus test, as an intentional effort to reduce complexity from whatever is being discussed into clear cut, select A or B, choices. Said another way, the attempt to remove logic and reason from usually nuanced and complex issues that require a solution far more complex and meaningful than what fits on a picture circulating social media.

Example subjects

For the purposes of this part of the conversation all we are doing is showing issued framed as binary between Republicans and Democrats, not really the intention to discuss the merits of both answers just that they are framed as an either or, something we could call false dilemmas.

Anyway, examples…

Climate Change and Energy Policy – Republicans will frame this as “pro-industry” and “energy independence” while Democrats will frame this as “pro-environment” entire in the context of their solutions. No matter if it is Trump rolling back policies and opening up exploration favoring oil and coal or someone like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s Green New Deal. Debates on nuclear power, speed of transition to renewables, role of carbon capture and regulation but ultimately the binary choice of effectiveness is market-based solutions or government-mandated solutions.

Immigration – Been in the news plenty, not just the political fallout for the Trump Administration but also some interesting results numerically speaking. That said the binary narratives are all there. Supporting Republican “closed border” policies or Democrat’s “open border” policies, even the occasional “pro-immigrant” position from the left facing the harsh “pro-criminal” accusation from the right. Politically framed as being in one camp or the other but not really discussing pathways to citizenship, this nation’s odd history of various guest worker and guest student programs, how we go about border security, and of course neither Republicans or Democrats are all that interested in the economics and causes of migration.

Abortion – Absolutely fits into the political narrative that there are only two choices here, “pro-life” or “pro-choice” and there is no middle ground. The political belief that life begins at conception and should be protected in all circumstances going up against the counter belief that bodily autonomy is a right to choose consideration between the patient and the doctor without any government interference. With this binary framing of the issue, some “absolutist” mentality, we find large majorities wanting exceptions to reasonable abortion limitations especially in the cases of rape, incest, save the life of the mother, what have you. Many non-party loyalists favor no limits in the first trimester with most restrictions by the time of the third, some sort of progression of regulation to handle the very nuances that both Republicans and Democrats have come to reject.

There is plenty more, but you get the point.

Another area, branding political movements

At the end of last year, Harvard had their 51st “youth poll” asking various question on the political landscape of the nation. Buried in all the relevant questions was an ask on identity. And no, not the identity politics that ole ‘D and ‘R are famous for but rather how younger voters look at labels like “MAGA” and “Democratic Socialism.”

Independents, the real plurality of both young and overall Americans, reject both the MAGA and Democratic Socialism movements identifying with neither one. Only 24% of respondents support Democratic Socialism and just 13% support MAGA, perhaps more interesting only 29% identify as Capitalistic with declines seen by those identifying as Democratic, Republican, and Independents. All of them.

Since support is generally on the decline for all labels, like capitalism and socialism and democratic socialism, one conclusion reached is younger voters “are losing faith in big ideological labels.” Having old ‘D and ‘R saying these things while campaigning or grabbing a mic from CNN is having less impact.

Pew Research, just this past month, complemented this sentiment of people losing faith, accidentally in my opinion, with their own take on a “stark partisan divide in who thinks their side is winning and losing in politics.” Based on the questions asked the conclusion is that Republicans are saying their side is wining more than losing today than Democrats said of Biden during his time.

In the game of us vs. them, it answers another set of realities that the Democratic Party approval rating is still near historic lows but also that the gap in perception of “winning” is off the chart. Even if you accept the principle that most Republicans and Democrats are negative on the “winning” part when the opposition holds the White House to have such a large gap also suggests both that independents are still on the sidelines and the litmus test for guarding ideology and sentiment is stronger with Republicans than it is Democrats.

A few months prior to that, Pew Research had another piece on the general negativity between party loyalists of each other as well as independents looking at the both of them. Majorities still see both parties as too extreme in their positions, 61% see Republicans that way with 57% towards Democrats. For 73% of Republicans and 63% of Democrats, they view the opposing party as “more immoral” than everyone else and over 90% of both Republicans and Democrats think their opposition has “gone too far” using negative and inflammatory rhetoric.

Not only do Republicans and Democrats have nothing good to say about each other, everyone outside of both bubbles thinks nothing of either one.

How do we even begin to address all this?

Besides being more critical of solutioning from Republicans and Democrats, of course more vocal in rejecting their supporting case of mainstream media talking-heads trying to amplify the illusion of binary choices, it may mean consideration of what a few other nations have already deployed to deal with concentrated political party power and establishment.

May want to give more consideration to structural reforms such as Ranked-Choice Voting that ranks candidates by the voter. It may have the counter-effect of surprise spoiler third-party candidates but it may also force ole ‘D and ‘R candidates to appeal to far more than their base otherwise they end up ranked out of the mix. The wedge of using voters selecting more than one option against a politician spending all their time in the game of binary choice.

Open primaries may be the bigger win. Because so many identify in a manner that tells Republicans and Democrats they are not loyalists, but who they would vote for ends up excluded from taxpayer-funded closed and party controlled primaries, opening this up forces the very competition neither party wants. You get a few competitive races, for say a House seat in Congress, where more moderate candidates show up not beholden to the 27% Republican or 27% Democratic respective bases and suddenly those binary choices collapse. Before anyone takes office.

It is only a matter of time before enough voters are fed up with partisan controlled gerrymandering of districts and demand independent redistricting commissions using technology to drive and respond to census numeric inputs. As we have discussed in other conversations, less than 10% of the 435 seats in the US House are considered truly competitive in any given election cycle. The overwhelming number are quite literally politicians picking their voters. With more competitive districts, ideally with more than ole ‘D and ‘R loyalists on the ticket, then dynamics change. Again, before anyone takes office.

Another option to consider, even with the real risks of doing so, is various proportional representation models where districts are not a seat where one winner takes all, but rather seats are allocated based on the percentage of the vote received rather than one winner per district. Might mean much larger districts but removes the idea of “deep red” and “deep blue” powerhouse seats that fuels corruption and long-term career political thinking.

A last consideration is looking seriously about the Newt Gingrich installed political theory of “us vs. them” nationalized political themes. Give the following point of view a consideration in that, not every Republican is a Texas or Florida Republican and not every Democrat is a California or New York Democrat. Just saying that, intentionally that way, is the best evidence we may ever get that nationalized political themes send more people to the increasing and near majority non-party loyalist crowd.

In Conclusion

One, or more, or even other suggestions one may pick up there and there (like term limits for Congress and age limits for President and the Supreme Court) is all designed to force critical conversations that political establishment would rather you not. The reality that an increasing demographic in this nation is not so far politically divided from one another as mainstream Republicans and Democrats would have you believe, and is willing to be more critical of the current status than mainstream media would bother themselves to review.

The motivation is undeniable. The rise of “voting against a candidate” suggesting no real love or support for who was voted for but plenty of contempt for who was voted against. The all-to-common political pendulum mentality of handing control of Congress back and forth reliant on several competitive House seats and perhaps 3 or 4 “swing states.” The fact that there has only been one President in the modern era, George W. Bush, who gained seats in his first midterm in both chambers of Congress, whereas everyone else lost to some degree and the majority of them saw one or more chambers flip to opposing party control.

Independents and non-party loyalists are arguably doing all the heavy lifting in this regard, where polarized respective party bases continue to live in the respective binary bubbles.

Might just mean that silent majority start to be not so silent.

Sources:

Gallup – U.S. Political Parties Historically Polarized Ideologically – January 16, 2025

Gallup – New High of 45% in U.S. Identify as Political Independents – January 12, 2026

Harvard – Harvard Youth Poll – Fall 2025

Pew Research – …Dim Views of Both Parties – October 30, 2025

Pew Research – Stark Partisan Divide… – February 24, 2026