Generation Z is inheriting a fraught political and social climate. Politics define every aspect of life, including personal relationships.
According to Pew Research Center, 51% of Republicans and 52% of Democrats say members of the other party are less intelligent. Larger majorities of both parties also say their opponents are immoral, dishonest, and closed-minded.
Although specific political differences may initiate divides, this polarization is a result of dehumanization. Opposing perspectives are viewed as inherently evil, and we are defined by our differences rather than our similarities. Overarching agreement between individuals appears to be disregarded if just one differing viewpoint is deemed reprehensible. Political “others” no longer prioritize coexistence or coalition over individual agendas.
“Although specific political differences may initiate divides, this polarization is a result of dehumanization”
E pluribus unum could become a remnant of the past.
Goodwill, the benefit of the doubt, and openness seem to have given way to impulsive reactions. Failing to recognize the humanity of people with whom you disagree, closing off possibilities of working with them, and decrying them as “deplorable” or “vermin”—both terms used by presidential candidates describing other parties’ supporters in 2016 and 2023—creates divisions that will destroy the fabric of free society.
Disagreement is good; it builds everything from a thriving intellectual community to a functioning democracy. However, disagreement only works when it is kept civil and of pure motivations, and democracy only works when we work together to overcome our differences rather than fight to allow one-sided domination. We learn and grow from civil discourse and open-mindedness.
Fifth Formers entering U.S. History* read Farah Stockman’s American Made. Stockman, a New York Times reporter/editorial board member and daughter of academics, opens with the shock that pervaded her community when Donald Trump was elected president over Hillary Clinton in 2016. No one in Stockman’s world conceptualized how the United States elected Trump. While reporting at Wellesley College, Clinton’s alma mater, Stockman even heard someone remark, “F*** you, middle part of the country.”
But then Stockman travels to a manufacturing community in Indianapolis, Indiana, where a factory is closing and jobs are leaving the United States. There, as she gathers information for her article, she forms strong connections with workers. One worker, John Feltner, is a union organizer and Trump voter who decries establishment and power systems with a Confederate flag, which he calls a symbol of his Kentucky-based family’s pride and a “rebel flag.”
Late in the book, Stockman, a woman of color, has a long conversation with Feltner about the meaning of the flag. While Felter admits that he was never taught much about slavery, he also explains to Stockman that he doesn’t see the world through race or as defined by racism. “I think most people are sitting here having a conversation just like you and I,” Feltner says. “You are different from me, but I love you. I respect you. You are in my home, and we’re having a conversation. Most people can do that.”
Feltner’s belief, while seemingly refuted by Pew statistics, is indicative of the power of open-mindedness. The same way Stockman doesn’t lash out at Feltner for displaying a Confederate flag, Feltner doesn’t lash out at Stockman for questioning his decisions. They listen to each other and learn.
Just before the Civil War broke out in 1861, North-South sectional divides and partisan
political divides plagued the United States. Republicans commanded a majority in the North and hadn’t even expanded South, and Democrats held power in the Confederate States-to-be. South Carolina seceded for fear of future anti-slavery Republican legislation. At that time, division between the two parties was much more justified than it is today. It seems that war needed to be fought to destroy the racist and immoral institution of slavery.
Today, we don’t see the same sectional lines dividing America, but the nation is arguably reaching the same levels of political polarization that fractured it 162 years ago. Only this time, it’s a symptom of closed-minded politicians and recklessly biased media pundits shaping public opinion, not of the disgraceful, dehumanizing enslavement of African Americans.
The United States is one of few international democracies with just two prominent political parties represented in its legislature. Thirteen parties are represented in the United Kingdom’s parliament. Canada has six parties represented. Israel has more than twelve.
America’s two-party system pigeon-holes people into voting one way or the other: yes or no; red or blue. For many, there is no chance to find a leader who truly represents their views.
While this system is not inherently problematic (and it is certainly better than just one party!), extremes dominate our two parties. As our elected officials sow seeds of polarization, we see division manifested as vitriol and politically-influenced hatred in our communities. Hatred that, to some degree, resembles the disdain for “otherness” and diverse perspectives that is the basis of both far-right and far-left authoritarianism.
However, the presence of extreme elements on either side of the spectrum is not the issue in and of itself. “Radical” views are allowed—bold ideas spur innovation and improvement. The issue is that these extremes refuse to work together.
In recent years, major congressional votes have become split down party lines. In 1986, the Senate confirmed the conservative Ronald Reagan-nominee Antonin Scalia to the Supreme Court with 100% approval. In 1993, the Senate confirmed the liberal Bill Clinton-nominee Ruth Bader Ginsburg to the Supreme Court with 97% approval. Congress used to be able to evaluate individuals based on merit rather than political affiliation. But the Senate hasn’t confirmed a Justice with a majority vote from both parties since 1994.
Furthering their apparent disregard for collaboration, House Democrats supported just eight Republicans to oust House Speaker Kevin McCarthy in October, allowing extreme elements of the Republican party to foment chaos rather than working with 95% of Republicans to maintain stability. House Republicans, for their own part, couldn’t even reach an internal agreement for McCarthy’s replacement for three weeks, let alone find a nominee whom Democrats could support.
As citizens allow their elected officials to bicker without any inclination to compromise or work together, they become identified with that same stubbornness—sometimes subconsciously. People identify themselves with their parties. It is a defining characteristic for many, and political positions are often tied to religion, family history, and personal experiences.
But as people equate themselves with parties, and parties become intolerant of each other, citizens do as well. Politicians then have no choice but to fan the flames of division. They have to play to their bases to maintain support.
While politicians themselves do contribute to this dynamic, they are not the only force acting on the minds of the American people. The media has immense power to shape public opinion. Social media seems to have claimed the minds of Generation Z with its algorithms and prevalent misinformation; the rest of the nation has fallen victim to similar problems in print, online, and even television news.
News media does not present solely facts. Every source comes with bias—even if that bias is one toward centrism or bipartisanship. Headlines and articles sensationalize content, obfuscate information, and promote specific agendas. Talking heads on cable news networks shape public opinion with their selectively filtered facts, leaving both sides with different truths. When even facts are a point of contention, civil discourse is impossible.
Indeed, instead of setting an example of formal debate defined by shared truths and mutual respect, our politicians call each other offensive names, tear up each other’s speeches, heckle, and even pursue personal attacks.
Soon, fewer and fewer voters will remember a time of good-natured collaboration between the two parties. You and I are becoming desensitized to an untenable political climate. The bigger problem? Many don’t see anything wrong with the state of the union today. What will it take to show that disunity, intolerance, and closed-mindedness lead to destruction?
We, the youth, have the power to be truly productive citizens and define where our future leads us. Rather than buying into and perpetuating polarization, we can reintroduce unity into our nation’s ethos.
What does unity look like? It’s civility. It’s cordiality. It’s open-mindedness. It’s the willingness to learn, grow, and adapt. It’s respect. And it takes courage.
Preparing boys for productive citizenship is key to “Preparing Boys for Life.” If we truly buy into the Haverford brotherhood, we must commit ourselves, not just in name but also in practice, to our virtues.
The basic decency and nuances of character that our virtues command lay the groundwork for the preservation of unity in the United States.
