One of the most useful terms for understanding politics in the U.S. and elsewhere is one you've probably never heard before. Do an internet search for "artificial polarization", and you'll be presented with esoteric articles about the artificial polarization of light in photography and lasers. My father, an astronomer, discovered the polarization of light in space. But most of us are more earthbound, and associate polarization with politics. We live in a highly polarized time, people say, and shake their heads.
The question needs to be asked, however: How much of that polarization is real--that is, growing out of genuine disagreement about policy--and how much of it is artificially produced? If someone lies, an artificial polarization between truth and assertion is immediately created. If someone doubles down on a lie, artificial polarization is sustained. Denial of human-caused climate change is an example of sustained artificial polarization, as is the claim that tax cuts pay for themselves. False claims that the 2020 presidential election was stolen are another example of creating polarization where there need be none.
What purpose does artificial polarization play in political life? It is politically expedient, of course, to ignore the overwhelming evidence and pretend that burning fossil fuels and cutting taxes have no downside. Weaning ourselves of fossil fuels, and paying the full cost of government services, would require sacrifice. Denying these problems lets voters off the hook. But that doesn't explain the demonization of vaccines that could save the lives of your supporters.
Beyond the opportunism of willful wishful thinking, the creation of artificial polarization achieves two goals. The first goal achieved through artificial polarization is a sense of identity. Consensus is dangerous for politicians. The road to anonymity is paved with agreement. Identity is built on difference. From this perspective, unifying forces like truth become a threat to political identity. Climate change is perhaps the most potentially unifying threat we face. Each one of us, regardless of political or national affiliation, is part of the problem and part of the solution. Rallying to save ourselves and nature would require acknowledging common interest and working together towards a common goal.
The second goal of artificial polariation is the maintenance of a despised Other, that is, an enemy that can be used to rally and sustain a loyal following. People feel lifted up if they can look down on something or somebody. An outside threat, real or imaginary, can give people a sense of purpose, and help them forget their own problems and inadequacies. Make people feel victimized by some outside entity and you can fuel a movement. Often, the despised Other is of another race or religion. The federal government, too, became a despised Other in the 1960s and 70s when it was forcibly drafting young men to risk their lives in Vietnam. In contrast, today's anti-government protest, evolving from the Reagan and Gingrich eras in the 1980s and '90s, is fueled by such things as stoked resentment of vaccines that can save lives.
An Other cannot be fully and satisfyingly despised if the Other is sometimes right. It must, therefore, be always wrong, and sometimes this means creating lies that suggest the Other is wrong even when they are right.
The aim here is to encourage journalists and others to avoid generalized, generic laments about political polarization, and rather make clear distinctions between politicians who are generating polarization artificially through lies and denial, and those who are sticking closer to truth.
Afterword:
Just to show how rarely this highly useful term is used in political discourse, below are the results of googling "artificial polarization" (with the quotes) in Sept 2025. A related post of mine from five years ago is the only politically oriented webpage that shows up.
To get results related to politics, try googling "artificial polarization" politics.
