Hoover Institution
09/24/2024 | Press release | Archived content
What About Affective Polarization
Political differences between Democrats and Republicans have increased, but many observers conclude that these differences are not large enough to explain the partisan vitriol that characterizes American politics today. To explain this gap, they suggest that polarization has an affective, or emotional, rather than a cognitive, or reasoned, basis. Although plausible, this account has been too rapidly and uncritically accepted despite major research questions that have not been addressed.
Takeaways
- Public opinion findings suggest that political conflict is more intense than can be explained by partisan differences in ideologies and positions on the issues. (See previous essay in the series.)
- Some observers suggest that partisan acrimony can be described as affective, or based on emotion rather than on vast ideological differences.
- Despite the weaknesses outlined in this essay, the notion of "affective polarization" has been adopted more quickly and less critically than is scientifically justified.
About the Author
Morris Fiorina is a professor of political science at Stanford University and a senior fellow of the Hoover Institution. He has written or edited fourteen books, most recently Who Governs? Emergency Powers in the Time of COVID. An elected member of the National Academy of Sciences, Fiorina has received career achievement awards from two sections of the American Political Science Association.
An Era of Unstable Majorities Continues
A continuation of the Hoover Institution's Unstable Majorities series from the 2016 election season, the first half of this essay series leads up to the November 2024 elections with general discussions of the past and present political situation, of particular interest to students and professionals in the fields of political science and political journalism. The second half continues post-election with analyses focused specifically on the 2024 elections, addressed to a wider audience. The series begins by looking back at the issues raised in 2016 that continue today.
Learn more