Polarization: What Everyone Needs to Know®
Abstract
The 2016 election of Donald J. Trump invoked a time for reflection about the state of American politics and its deep ideological, cultural, racial, regional, and economic divisions. But one aspect that the contemporary discussions often miss is that these fissures have been opening over several decades and are deeply rooted in the structure of American politics and society. Nolan McCarty's Polarization: What Everyone Needs to Know® is an accessible introduction to polarization in America. McCarty takes readers through what scholars know and don't know about the origins, development, and implications of our rising political conflicts, delving into social, economic, and geographic determinants of polarization in the United States. While the current political climate makes it clear that extreme views are becoming more popular, McCarty also argues that, contrary to popular belief, the 2016 election was a natural outgrowth of 40 years of polarized politics, instead of a significant break with the past. He explains the factors that have created this state of affairs, including gerrymandered legislative districts, partisan primary nomination systems, and our private campaign finance system. He also considers the potential of major reforms such as instating proportional representation or single-transferable voting to remedy extreme polarization. A concise overview of a complex and crucial topic in US politics, this book is for anyone wanting to understand how to repair the cracks in…
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
A more polarized legislature advantages defenders of the status quo and can lead to a deteriorating quality of governance that may in turn undermine faith in the constitution.
“More generally, a more polarized legislature (i.e., one consisting of extremists on all sides) “advantages defenders of the status quo… and can lead to a deteriorating quality of governance [that] may in turn undermine faith in our constitution” (McCarty, 2019, pp.154-155).”
From How to study democratic backsliding (2024) · cites this paper as McCarty, 2019
Issue or ideological polarization is typically operationalized as approaching or arriving at a bimodal distribution of beliefs, opinions and values.
“This type of polarization is typically operationalized as approaching or arriving at a bimodal distribution of beliefs, opinions and values50,72.”
From Cognitive–motivational mechanisms of political polarization in social-communicative contexts (2022) · cites this paper as [72]
Sometimes multiple lines of potential disagreement in society become highly overlapping, aligned or consolidated, reducing multiple potential cleavages to a single dimension that dominates political relations.
“Sometimes multiple lines of potential disagreement in society become highly overlapping, aligned or consolidated. In these cases, multiple potential cleavages might be reduced to a single dimension that comes to dominate political relations8,72,77,78.”
From Cognitive–motivational mechanisms of political polarization in social-communicative contexts (2022) · cites this paper as [72]
Historically speaking, polarization in the USA reflects social patterns that began with Southern realignment following civil rights legislation, the rise of single-issue interest groups, changes in campaign finance law, and the withdrawal of moderates from party politics and primary races, especially on the political right.
“Historically speaking, polarization in the USA reflects social patterns that began with Southern realignment following civil rights legislation, the rise of single-issue interest groups, changes in campaign finance law, and the withdrawal of moderates from party politics and primary races, especially on the political right10,27,31,34,37,72,342,343).”
From Cognitive–motivational mechanisms of political polarization in social-communicative contexts (2022) · cites this paper as [72]
Cites
The Framing of Decisions and the Psychology of Choice
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1981) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.7455683 · Cited by 17,604 · see citing works
Iyengar, S., Sood, G., & Lelkes, Y. (2012) · Public Opinion Quarterly · doi:10.1093/poq/nfs038 · Cited by 2,748 · see citing works
Fear and loathing across party lines: New evidence on group polarization
Iyengar, S., & Westwood, S. J. (2015) · American Journal of Political Science · doi:10.1111/ajps.12152 · Cited by 2,452 · see citing works
Red Media, Blue Media: Evidence of Ideological Selectivity in Media Use
Iyengar, S., & Hahn, K. S. (2009) · Journal of Communication · doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2008.01402.x · Cited by 1,940 · see citing works
Birds of the Same Feather Tweet Together: Bayesian Ideal Point Estimation Using Twitter Data
Barberá, P. (2015) · Political Analysis · doi:10.1093/pan/mpu011 · Cited by 982 · see citing works
Bias in Cable News: Persuasion and Polarization
Martin, G. J., & Yurukoglu, A. (2017) · American Economic Review · doi:10.1257/aer.20160812 · Cited by 666 · see citing works
Schaffner, B. F., Macwilliams, M., & Nteta, T. (2018) · Political Science Quarterly · doi:10.1002/polq.12737 · Cited by 541 · see citing works
How Ideology Fuels Affective Polarization
Rogowski, J. C., & Sutherland, J. L. (2016) · Political Behavior · doi:10.1007/s11109-015-9323-7 · Cited by 503 · see citing works
Political Partisanship as a Social Identity
Huddy, L., & Bankert, A. (2017) · Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Politics · doi:10.1093/acrefore/9780190228637.013.250 · Cited by 235 · see citing works
Partisan asymmetries in online political activity
Conover, M. D., Gonçalves, B., Flammini, A., & Menczer, F. (2012) · EPJ Data Science · doi:10.1140/epjds6 · Cited by 234 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
American Affective Polarization in Comparative Perspective
Gidron, N., Adams, J., & Horne, W. (2020) · doi:10.1017/9781108914123 · Cited by 481 · see citing works
Affective polarization, local contexts and public opinion in America
Druckman, J. N., Klar, S., Krupnikov, Y., Levendusky, M., & Ryan, J. B. (2020) · Nature Human Behaviour · doi:10.1038/s41562-020-01012-5 · Cited by 463 · see citing works
Backsliding: Democratic Regress in the Contemporary World
Haggard, S., & Kaufman, R. (2021) · doi:10.1017/9781108957809 · Cited by 464 · see citing works
Cognitive–motivational mechanisms of political polarization in social-communicative contexts
Jost, J. T., Baldassarri, D. S., & Druckman, J. N. (2022) · Nature Reviews Psychology · doi:10.1038/s44159-022-00093-5 · Cited by 276 · see citing works
A review and provocation: On polarization and platforms
Kreiss, D., & McGregor, S. C. (2024) · New Media & Society · doi:10.1177/14614448231161880 · Cited by 151 · see citing works
Why voters who value democracy participate in democratic backsliding
Braley, A., Lenz, G. S., Adjodah, D., Rahnama, H., & Pentland, A. (2023) · Nature Human Behaviour · doi:10.1038/s41562-023-01594-w · Cited by 138 · see citing works
Flamino, J., Galeazzi, A., Feldman, S., Macy, M. W., Cross, B., Zhou, Z., Serafino, M., Bovet, A., Makse, H. A., & Szymanski, B. K. (2023) · Nature Human Behaviour · doi:10.1038/s41562-023-01550-8 · Cited by 113 · see citing works
How to study democratic backsliding
Druckman, J. N. (2024) · Political Psychology · doi:10.1111/pops.12942 · Cited by 56 · see citing works
Testing theories of political persuasion using AI
Argyle, L. P., Busby, E. C., Gubler, J. R., Lyman, A., Olcott, J., Pond, J., & Wingate, D. (2025) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.2412815122 · Cited by 25 · see citing works
- Authors
- McCarty, N.
- Corresponding author
- McCarty, Nolan
- ORCID
- McCarty, Nolan
- Publisher
- Oxford University PressNew York
- Published
- 2019-12-05
- OpenAlex
- W4236619877
- Cited by
- 280
- References
- 10
- Citations by year
- 2026: 60 · 2025: 60 · 2024: 46 · 2023: 40 · 2022: 30 · 2021: 31 · 2020: 10 · 2019: 3
- FWCI
- 21.71
- Type
- book
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Electoral Systems and Political Participation
- Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Political Theory and Democracy
- Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › American Constitutional Law and Politics
- Keywords
- political polarization, American politics, 2016 US presidential election, Donald Trump, gerrymandering, campaign finance, proportional representation, electoral reform
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review