We hear almost constantly how Americans are more politically polarized than ever. Even in Donald Trump’s barnstorming return to the presidency, we see a battle between unified and triumphant Republicans, and demoralized Democrats plotting a comeback.
But partisan polarization fails to capture an even more important reality: We are not divided into opposing left-right camps. Rather, we are fractured as a society into numerous competing worldviews, policy positions and identities.
Beyond polarization, we live with a condition I call “hyperpluralism,” in which people are split into countless political factions, each with new capabilities to make policy demands and destabilize old centers of power.
We see hyperpluralism in social media, which makes political organizing easier and more disruptive than ever. We see it in the way we consume news, where media-choice has shattered common understandings of events.
We see this among lawmakers, where politicians previously beholden to party elites can now broker their own information and fundraising coalitions. A post on social media can directly reach political audiences and raise thousands of dollars.
Hyperpluralism is the outcome of the proliferation of political speech on social media, podcasts and news websites. It stems from the ability of people who previously might have been political outliers to achieve national audiences and to obtain essential financial support — whether Rep. Nancy Mace (R-S.C.) or Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), Freedom Convoys or Black Lives Matter, Joe Rogan or the Young Turks.
Hyperpluralism is evident in the disruptive forces of American politics that are hallmarks of the 21st century: from Occupy Wall Street to the Jan. 6 Capitol riot, the Tea Party and the Squad, and anti-vaxxers versus the medical establishment.
The consequences of hyperpluralism echo throughout our politics. When Americans disagree about whether the Russian invasion of Ukraine is a bad thing, whether vaccines are a good idea or if a violent attack on the U.S. Capitol is a peaceful protest, these are not signs of democratic deliberation between liberals and conservatives. They are bellwethers of a shattering society, a scatterplot of ideas, interests and identities.
James Madison, in defending the Constitution, spoke to the inevitable “mischiefs of faction,” where a “zeal for different opinions” is “sown in the nature of man.” In his solution, the American government was designed to check power among competing factions and centers of government authority.
“Ambition must be made to counteract ambition,” Madison wrote. This system would ensure the competition of interests and ideas, prevent tyranny of the majority and minority alike, preserve liberty and serve the ends of justice.
Pluralism was to be a good thing — an open society would encourage civil debate and solutions for the common good. Yet the explosion of public discourse and engagement on the internet, resulting in hyperpluralism, has torn us apart and fractured us into so many different interests and perspectives. It proves difficult to achieve the common good when conflict abounds and it is hard to agree upon what we have in common.
There are no easy solutions to what we might call the mischief of too many factions. Ideologically, there are no obvious schools of thought we could agree upon to bring us all together. The progressive left, neoliberal globalists and faith and flag conservatives, to name but a few major political divisions, share little in common in terms of political philosophy or policy preferences.
Passing laws or amending the Constitution for bold solutions — like instituting proportional representation or putting an end to gerrymandering — would be incredibly difficult to push through a divided Congress and an electorate that lacks consensus.
Meanwhile, the internet makes it easier than ever for people to disperse into their own political bubbles, and social media algorithms are designed to drive us further apart. Under these conditions of hyperpluralism, it is more likely than ever for Americans “to vex and oppress each other than to cooperate for their common good,” to borrow, again, from Madison
So here we are. Trump is blitzing the country in a honeymoon of Republican unity. But beneath this triumphant wave is a fractured society.
To many, Trump himself is challenging democratic institutions like no one in our lifetimes. An even greater challenge to those institutions may be the divisions among the people they are intended to unite.
The question remains whether, under such strains, Madison’s great solution can hold.
Brian Alexander, Ph.D., is an associate professor of politics at Washington and Lee University and director of the W&L Washington Term, an experiential learning program for college students. He is the author of “A Social Theory of Congress: Legislative Norms in the Twenty-First Century.”
