Photo: Roberto Schmidt/AFP via Getty Images
Since the 1970s, the polarization of the American political landscape has increased with almost every new president. The contrasts under Trump (with a 78% approval rating difference between his Republican fans and the democratic haters) are the sad climax of this for now. Nevertheless, his presidency should be seen more as a logical continuation of a long-established path, rather than a starting point for a completely new development.
Background
The acceleration in polarisation is mostly due to several radical developments during the last two decades of the previous century. Most important of these are the end of the Cold War and the deregulation of large parts of the industry.
The economic and political bankruptcy of the Soviet Union did not only have significant consequences for the relationship between the Eastern Bloc and the West. The Cold War 'victory' also had unexpected and far-reaching repercussions for domestic relations in the United States itself. With the disappearance of the common enemy, the previously relatively collegial way of decision-making between politicians of both parties on and around Capitol Hill came under threat. It was mainly the republican politician Newt Gingrich who, in the mid-1990s, sharpened relations between parties, trampled on existing political conventions and sought partisan positions at all costs. These contradictions only increased since, even to the extent the country at times became ungovernable. Under Trump's presidency, this only deteriorated further because, unlike most presidents before him, he actively and consistently taunts, intimidates and frustrate representatives of the other party (the democrats) as well as former employees.
Another significant development in the 1980s was that human rights - once the hobbyhorse with which the 'free West' could differentiate itself from the (raw) reality of communism - was increasingly subordinated to the growth of the economy. Milton Friedman, an advisor to both Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher, was an ardent supporter of the free market economy: "markets always work, and only markets work", Capitalism and Freedom, 1962. It has led to fierce deregulation of the corporate sector, especially the financial industry, and has paved the way to profit maximization, sham constructions and disproportionate bonus culture. The moral compass of American society has been completely upset by this unbridled confidence in the efficiency of the market, combined with the complete underestimation of the greed and selfishness of human actors in leading positions. This had a huge impact on workers rights and equal opportunities.
The past and present
Meanwhile, the political division is more prevalent than ever before. The racial and ethnic relationships are shifting, the income distribution has changed radically, and religious affiliation is changing dramatically. Everyone is affected in one way or another.
Race and ethnicity
The racial relationships have changed dramatically over the last 50 years. Whereas in 1970, 83.5% of the American population was white, it is now only 60.6%. By 2050, this is likely to have decreased even further. By then, whites will have lost their absolute majority as a population group, with 46.6% of the total population. The number of Latinos (or 'Hispanics'), people with an ethnic, historical or cultural link with former Spanish and Portuguese colonies in Latin America, will have risen to almost 27%.
Income ratios
As far as income ratios are concerned, it is astonishing to see that over the past almost 50 years, the share of the high-income class as a percentage of total income has increased by more than 65%. The proportion of middle-income decreased by 30%, while the low-income group lost 10% of their share of income. The truth is out: tax cuts benefit the rich and don't trickle down to the rest of the economy after all!
Who are the primary victims of this income policy becomes painfully evident when studying the statistics of the corona crisis. Blacks and Latinos have been disproportionately affected by COVID-19. Their inferior economic position and poor working conditions are most likely to blame.
Religion
Major shifts are also visible in the way Americans live their faith. Whereas in 1970 only 3% of the population considered themselves to be secular, this figure has since risen to 21%. The Christian faith is still dominant with a 68% 'share' (94% in 1970), while a relatively small part of the population adheres to a different faith (8%, including Jews and Muslims). The proportion of Catholics in the community has remained relatively stable over the past fifty years. Most striking is the turnover of people who see themselves as Protestant. Whereas in 1970 the percentage was 65%, now it's only 35%.
In short, a lot has changed in the past 50 years or so. All this justifies the conclusion that many population groups have reason to feel threatened. Either because they, as a minority, are in the corner where they suffer blow after blow, or because they no longer feel part of the majority to which they thought they belonged and which protects each other - explicitly or not. With Protestant Christian values declining and the share of whites in the total population decreasing, it is not surprising that this group reverts to conservative values. The tragedy is that reality has overtaken these values; not only as their 'white privileges' are under threat, but also by advancing technology, globalization and immigration from Latin America and Asia.
Political stalemate
Due to the politicization of religion in the United States in combination with the electoral system of 'winner takes all', majorities in politics are easily over-represented, Christian values and 'white' interests largely dominate the political game for the time being.
This phenomenon is particularly evident in the Senate, where there is a Protestant Christian overrepresentation (60%). Regardless of its population, each state delegates two representatives to the Senate (which then totals 100 senators). Wyoming, with a population of just under 600,000, is equally represented as California with almost 40 million inhabitants. The numerous and sparsely populated states in the southeast and middle of the US with a dominant evangelical Protestant following secure a majority republican representation in the Senate. The picture in the House of Representatives is somewhat different. In addition to Protestants, Catholics are also over-represented here. The composition of the House of Representatives does take into account the size of the population of a state. At least one member represents each state. Across the US there are 435 districts, each of which elects a representative to the House of Representatives.
Especially in the Senate, this results in a composition that is asymmetrical with political preferences as they are in society as a whole. Based on the popular vote, the political ratio based on the total number of votes cast for a political party, the Democrats in the Senate would have 53 seats compared to 45 seats based on the current system of electors.
Things are different in the presidential elections. The number of electors per state depends on its population size (ranging from 3 to 55 per state; in total there are 540 electors). All electors are assigned to the candidate with the most votes in that state. Within the electoral college, the elector casts his vote for the presidential candidate who won in his state.
Another important factor for political relations is that the elections for the presidency, the Senate and the House of Representatives have increasingly become a race determined by big money and the interests of donors. In the year 2000, $1.7 billion was raised by the joint candidates to win the coveted nomination; so far (with five months to go) it is already $4.7 billion. Still, how independent are the elected representatives and whose interests do they represent? Are they the interests of those who voted for them, or those who paid for their election? It is not always clear who they are, but it is clear that there are often very wealthy citizens behind this. Super PACs (a financing vehicle for giving targeted contributions to candidates or, on the contrary, combating them) are used to conceal the identity of generous donors. In 2012, for example, 80% of the total money raised by these Super PACs was coughed up by only 3.7% of the number of donors.
The unbalanced reflection of political relations and funding of candidates has far-reaching political implications for the legitimacy of the system felt by citizens. Underrepresentation leads to the 'forgotten' voters distancing themselves from, alienating and, in extreme cases, (physically) resisting politics and the federal government as a whole. It does not help that the current president has made polarisation the cornerstone of his re-election struggle and is not hindered in any way by his political supporters and advisors selected based on loyalty.
Future
The Americans have now reached the point where both the shrinking majority of white Americans with a Protestant Christian conviction, as well as the unrepresented minorities threatened by (police) violence and racism, have become sensitive to incidents that (further) threaten their precarious position. The recent Black Lives Matter demonstrations after the murder of George Floyd and especially the disturbances surrounding them show how explosive the situation can become and is if this escalates further.
How unthinkable is it now that militant white supremacists decide that the measure is full for them and that they resort to weapons for 'their' struggle for freedom? After all, Trump was clear when he twittered in an anti-lockdown protest after the occupation of the office of the Governor of Michigan by an armed militia that they were "very good people, but they are angry". For example, what happens if Trump or his supporters are angry in November and refuse to accept the results of the presidential election?
The differences that traditionally exist between republicans (more conservative, small government, independent citizen) and democrats (more progressive, bigger task federal government, more collective facilities) are only widening. The contradictions in the social debate are seemingly unbridgeable.
Because of the American two-party system, the different configuration of the two houses of Congress and the polarisation as mentioned earlier, the United States is politically locked up. Partly as a result of this, confidence in government steadily declined and is now at an all-time low (17%). Despite the enormous economic potential and military power, the harsh reality is that the United States is currently unable to build bridges to a vision of the desired and common political future of the country.
This political stalemate also translates into the (lack of) trust in the news media and, as far as I am concerned, the most shocking thing is trust in each other. Here, too, political preference determines the outcome to a large extent, but engagement with politics also plays an important role. The majority of democrats trust the media the most, and 91% of politically committed adults even trust the media the most. However, politically committed republicans do not trust the media at all. Only 16% of them have high or reasonable confidence that journalists act in the public interest. When asked about mutual trust, 71% of Americans believe that this has shrunk over the past 20 years, and 70% think that this makes it more challenging to solve the country's problems.
Conclusion
The Americans seem less united than at any time since at least the American Civil War (1861-1865). Although the person Trump undoubtedly has a part in this removal, the reality is that this was a major problem long before his presidency. The lack of representativeness in political representation is increasingly a problem in times when religion becomes less dominant, the composition of the population changes (demographic as well as racial/ethnic) and money becomes increasingly essential in positioning desirable candidates with unclear mandates.
Based on current political relations and the unshakeable nature of the American constitution, it is highly unlikely that this will change in the short term. Changing it would require a two-thirds majority in both Houses of Congress. It is more likely that there will first be a second American civil war than that there will be a two-thirds majority in both Houses of Congress to restore some balance to the system and political relations. I, therefore, consider the chance that the states of America will be united to be extremely small for the time being. As long as there are still large groups of minorities on the sidelines and it is not clear who and which America should become large again, the chance that the states of America will be united again is small.