division and polarization become strong

“Keep the faith. I’m a president who doesn’t see red states and blue states, but America. It’s time to unite. Let’s give ourselves a chance.” Joe Biden’s words on November 7, 2020 in his city, Wilmington (Delawere), once his victory in the North American elections was confirmed, sounded like heavenly music. The world wanted them to be true.

After four years of Donald Trump’s term, or in other words, of division (pre-existing and deepened), of trenches and of chaotic and lying rhetoric, 80 million citizens of different ideological tendencies came together to give the Democrat their trust, precisely so that, among other things, he could do that: sew together well a country that was only united with stitches.

That need for national regeneration became clearer than ever shortly afterwards, in the attack on the Capitol by a group of insurrectionists, staunch followers of the Republican, which ended with four civilians and a police officer dead, with a score of wounded and more than 50 of detained. That Three Kings Day in 2021, the question was whether Biden, even with all the good will that was assumed of him, was going to be able to close these wounds.

Now that his term is ending and new elections are coming, on November 5, the answer is no. Or not enough. It is true that the waters have calmed down a bit, because there have been no inflammatory messages from Trump from the Oval Office itself, nor controversial legislation, nor various boasts, but there has been a perpetual polarization between Republicans and Democrats on all public fronts. , which by extension has permeated a citizenry already soaked in disagreement.

For the first hundred days of Government, those of grace, Biden had designed “to gain the trust of all the American people because that is what the United States is about, the people,” he said. His administration, he said, would rely on a commitment: “to restore the soul of this nation” and “recover its strength,” which he located in the middle class. A message that his vice president and candidate for the White House, Kamala Harris, still repeats in the campaign.

However, the remains of the pandemic, the risk of recession first and inflation later due to the war in Ukraine, the conflict itself, plus those in the Middle East, or the bread of infrastructure or employment, ended up taking precedence over those hours of sewing fiancées

It hasn’t helped that, opposite Biden, there was once again Donald Trump, a man who in recent years has not recognized his electoral defeat and has stirred up resentment against the Democratic Administration among his people. What’s more: with his numerous judicial prosecutions, he has played martyrdom, blaming Biden for political persecution, further fueling rage.

Trump has also suffered an attack and two attempted attacks, but not even because of these has he altered his tone. The solemnity at the Republican Convention that elevated him as a candidate lasted 15 minutes, in July, before immediately accusing the Democrats of what happened. The blood did not transform him, it only forced him to put gauze on his ear.

It was not easy, therefore, for Biden to change things from the roots, since he had to govern a country where approximately half of the population considered him an illegitimate or, to a small extent, suspicious president: up to 74 million voters voted for Trump on November 3 of 2020. Today the polls say that there is a technical tie with Harris, who is between just a couple of tenths and a point and a half ahead of him, with an average of 48.1% of the votes for the Democrat and 46.4% for the Republicanat the close of this edition.

Hate, on the rise

In September 2023, the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace published a report (you have it complete at the end of this news) that has become the the bible to understand how things are in the US. As complete as it is devastating. Rachel Kleinfeld, principal investigator of the Democracy, Conflict and Governance Program of the think tank, confirms that there has been an increase in polarization, hidden and open tension, with peaks of violence, and manifestations of hatred, up to a range of crime.

“Affective polarization appears to be driven largely by misperceptions. Misperceptions about the other party’s actual demographic identities, the political beliefs held by members of the other party, the degree to which members of the other party dislike and disagree with the respondents and whether members of the other party support the breakdown of democratic norms are all causes of the problem,” he says.

Most Americans, he points out, “do not have very intense political beliefs,” “they alter their political preferences to match their partisan identities.” “Unlike Congress, which appears to be ideologically polarized, the problem for the public appears to be more emotional than ideological, although part of the emotional polarization is based on real and perceived ideological differences between the activist sectors of each party,” he elaborates.

It also talks about direct violence. “Not only have threats increased against political figures – from school administrators to congressmen – but also against judges. Hate crimes are at the highest level of this century. Cases in which the perpetrators of the attack adopt political rhetoric about their purposes or against the group they have shot at,” he says.

The study speaks of an “affective polarization” in the minds of citizens, on a social level, not just political, which shows that the crossed messages jump from the House of Representatives, the Senate or the media, and penetrate the citizens , in the voters. It is accentuated and greater than in other Western countries, but it is not new. “In the United States, emotional polarization has been increasing for decades, while political violence has skyrocketed since 2016,” the year Trump won the elections. There are differences, then, despite the fact that the tycoon and his team try to unite both things after the attacks on him.

“Affective polarization is quite symmetrical, it occurs at similar levels between both parties. However, political violence is much higher on the right (he says, pointing to the case of the Capitol). This suggests that the feelings, or hatred, towards sympathizers of the other party are not the main cause of political violence.

The explanation, the study continues, is that violence is always carried out by aggressive people and what changes is the objective of their violent acts. In times of low political and social polarization, they tend to direct this violence to close environments such as the home, workplace or school. “When polarization is high, however, it is common for political leaders and some media outlets to demonize the other party, thereby creating feelings of anger among their followers, who accumulate fear of the adversary’s actions. Rhetoric that dehumanizes and denigrates normalizes violence or threats against some groups, because that anger and fear turn the adversary into a target.

Although there are nuances, the current political climate in the United States generates a dangerous spiral that feeds these accents. After the alleged foiled attack near the golf club, Trump ally Elon Musk, the billionaire who bought Twitter, posted on his network: “No one is even trying to assassinate Biden/Kamala.” Musk deleted the message hours later. But the message was sent and the message was received.

During the campaign there has been a striking anecdote, when in the face-to-face debate with Harris, Trump said that the former president of the Haitian immigrants ate the cats and dogs of the Ohio residents. After that, several public places in the state received bomb threats. “This environment added to electoral polarization, the result of the increase in conspiracy theories, and misinformation make up a dangerous situation (…). To that mix add our culture of firearms and easy access to them.”

And the press, of course, does not escape responsibility. More aggressive politicians get more media attention and have better electoral results than friendlier politicians. It’s a fact. Among the population, more aggressive people are more likely to distrust politics, believe in conspiracy theories, and support secessionist movements.

Kleinfeld assumes that solving this situation is not easy, but he proposes several things to society and politicians: correct misperceptions about the other party, individually or through broader awareness campaigns; increase the relevance of a common identity; bring groups together to have social relationships despite differences and make structural changes to electoral systems, for starters.

What if we are like this?

Journalist Mark Leibovich, from The Atlanticwarns in the face of a possible second term for Trump that, perhaps, if the Republican wins, we must begin to ask ourselves if North American society has changed. That it is not that a streak has passed, but that it has become more violent, more sectarian, more trench-based, less open, multilateral and calm. “Maybe this is also the United States,” he says. A debate that goes deeper, that speaks of the transformation of a society with new ideological currents, as is happening in Europe.

“What did his supporters like so much about their loud new savior? I went to a few rallies and heard the same basic idea over and over again: Trump says things no one else would say. They didn’t necessarily agree or believe everything his declared candidate. But he spoke on his behalf,” he writes, trying to find explanations.

“You hoped that Biden was right, that we weren’t actually a nation of vandals, crackpots, and insurrectionists. But then, on the same day the Capitol was ransacked, 147 House and Senate Republicans voted not to certify the election of Biden,” he recalls. There was also no reply from the oldest party in the country. A “moral vacuum” that voters can share, if they now repeat for him, before which the most progressive will also have to ask themselves questions. What we didn’t do, what answers we gave, why they didn’t convince.

In such a polarized society, everyone always lives with a lot of hatred, fear and suspicion. The winner of the presidential election may change who bears the burden every four to eight years, but not the burden itself. The US continues to carry it on its back, dishonoring its history.

Will there be a leader who will begin to change things?