What comes to mind when you think about politics? Tranquility? Opportunity? Productivity? Absolutely not, but why? For many, the political sphere has become a place in which individuals seek to defeat, rather than learn. Recent years have redefined the state of politics, transforming into an arena characterized by ad hominem attacks and dehumanizing language — a change that has impeded democratic advancement. The exacerbation of political polarization not only induces this threat, but it risks diminishing the sense of understanding needed for both political and social progress. In defining the key components of each party, it is important to note that individuals are entitled to have their own opinions, even if they deviate from what is expected of them when registering as a specific party affiliate. That being said, it is also essential to consider how the clash between parties helps determine what social reform is satisfactory on a national level.
Modern Left
Historically, “woke” had been a term used to describe individuals who recognized racial prejudices, social injustices, and discrimination. In recent times, “woke culture” has been considered a derogatory term used to mock groups of individuals who identify with the left. In many cases, it is what unilaterally blends leftists with liberals, both of which are subdivisions of the left-wing.
Though both fall under the Democratic Party, as seen with both holding progressive views on social issues such as reproductive rights, LGBTQ+ rights, and gun control, their views differ when it comes to deciding how America should approach social change. Some leftists often consider a Marxist approach to be the best choice in order to enact egalitarian reform; this could entail a communist or socialist economic and political system. Communism would create a stateless and classless society, with all production being owned by the government. Socialism would prioritize government ownership as well, but wouldn’t seek to limit all forms of private ownership, instead acting as an “enduring transition state” between Capitalism and total Communism. Liberals, on the other hand, endorse regulated systems of capitalism that provide equitable opportunities to all.
Both sub-divisions of the mainstream Democratic Party acknowledge the flaws within present-day capitalism: competition prevents the social promotion of lower classes by inhibiting opportunity. It is for this reason that they endorse government intervention as a way to mitigate the escalation of social crises.
Modern Right
In recent times, modern conservative politicians have redefined the Republican party, shaping it into a platform for President Donald J. Trump’s Make America Great Again (MAGA) movement and associated ideologies, such as Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) movement. Although often blended into conservatism, MAGA supporters seem to fall more right than the traditional Republican Party on the political spectrum.
In a 2023 national poll, it was revealed that 37% of right-wing affiliates identified more with MAGA than the “traditional” Republican party. As of early 2025, about one-half (52%) of conservatives reported that they identified as a MAGA supporter. In isolating themselves from what conservatism used to be known as, much of the modern right has converted itself into an entity abiding by President Trump’s agenda.
Present-Day Politics
The current political atmosphere is both extremely tense and polarized, as seen through the spike in personal attacks and alienating language. Terms such as “woke liberal” and “communist” are often used to refer to the left, while terms such as “election-denier” and “fascist” are used to refer to Republicans, especially those who support the MAGA movement. In a recent poll, 69% of Republicans and 60% of Democrats affirmed the notion that their own political parties have gone too far in using harmful language to raise support for their own policies. For Republicans, this was a 16-percentage-point increase since 2011, and for Democrats, this was a 9-percentage-point increase since 2011.
Simultaneously, there has been an observed disparity between what constituents say and do, especially as this rise in political violence has taken shape. In a study of 1,128 MAGA Republicans, it was discovered that MAGA supporters were more likely than Democrats to endorse political acts of violence, but were not more likely to actively participate in said acts. However, when analyzing these results, it is vital to consider that both parties may contribute to the escalation of political violence, and overgeneralizations about political factions can increase the toxicity of the political atmosphere.
Despite the immense tension built up as a result of political polarization, the distribution between Republicans and Democrats is fairly even, with 45% of Americans identifying as Democrats and 46% identifying as Republicans. Contrary to a decade ago, in which Democrats dominated with 49% of the American population and 43% identified as Republicans, it is evident that recent times mark a turning point for American policy and legislation.
Pro Choice Versus Pro Life
The ultimate debate in the center of American politics recently revolves around abortion: the process of terminating a fetus during the mother’s pregnancy.
Democrats tend to defend a woman’s right to an abortion, citing three main reasons: the fetus’ viability and sentience, the woman’s safety, and female bodily autonomy.
Firstly, the fetus’ viability and sentience argument relies on the ethics of abortion. Viability, the ability for a fetus to sustain itself and its basic needs, and sentience, the concept of actively being conscious, both shape the trimester basis that has been used to determine at which points in time abortions could be considered ethical. In 2023, 69% of all Americans agreed that abortion should be legal in the first trimester (the first 13 weeks of pregnancy) while 37% supported it for the second trimester, and 22% for the third trimester. In the context of global thoughts on abortion, research has shown that thalamocortical connections must be established in order for someone to be conscious, and those usually form around the 24th week of pregnancy.
Secondly, Democrats often point to extreme cases in which the mother’s life is at risk. In a 2022 report, 39% of Democrats noted that an abortion is morally acceptable in all cases — this includes cases of rape, incest, and both intentional and unintentional pregnancies. When it comes to the mother’s life, Democrats often link the confirmation of life with the ethics of abortion; since the mother is known to be alive while the fetus’s viability and sentence is debated upon, individuals should follow with what they know for certain. With abortion, this favors prioritizing the mother’s life.
Finally, left-wing proponents argue that the government is an entity too profound in its influence, and giving it the ability to legislate on a woman’s body strips women of their own individual liberties. In 1973, Roe v. Wade, a monumental case for pro-choice supporters, established a precedent to defend the legality of having an abortion. Since being overturned in 2022, Roe v. Wade’s legacy has maintained a platform for Democratic rhetoric by fueling the ongoing debate.
Republicans, on the other hand, approach this topic with a different viewpoint on ethics; the party tends to view abortion as the termination of the potential of a human life and the risk of having subjectivity within the law.
In a study from 2022, it was reported that 20% of all Republicans thought that abortion was morally wrong in all cases, and 48% believed that abortion was morally wrong in most cases. For 28%, it seems that the basis of becoming pregnant due to violent circumstances — such as rape and incest — has become a justifiable exception for the immoral perception of abortion. This exception, while considered unacceptable to those who follow certain faiths, is considered to be a form of respect for women who became pregnant as a result of invasive and forceful actions.
Additionally, Republicans note the preexisting need to enforce the law, specifically in relation to illicit abortion networks. Perhaps one of the most famous instances of such a network was The Jane Collective: a covert abortion network in Chicago beginning in the late 1960s and continuing into the early 1970s. Over the course of five years, the secret organization carried out over 11,000 illegal yet safe abortions at $100 until abortions were made legal under Roe v. Wade. While the founder of The Jane Collective, Heather Booth, had a track record for her avid protesting, the Jane Seven — the group of seven women who helped run the initiative, consisting of Martha Scott, Judy Pildes, Diane Stevens, Jeanne Galatzer-Levy, Abby Pariser, Sheila Smith, and Madeleine Schwenk — were the individuals who were arrested in May, 1972. All charges were dropped once the famous Roe v. Wade decision was made in January, 1973.
In the context of modern politics, the risk of allowing other individuals to carry out similar practices on a larger scale would not only potentially encourage malpractice, but it would also put the lives of billions on the line. Republicans believe that legalizing all forms of abortions on a national scale would endorse unsafe operations, and that, by prohibiting it, the government would be able to regulate the accessibility, sanitation, and qualifications needed in order to perform such operations. Leading up to the 2024 election, the Trump administration reaffirmed its intent to enact policy directed towards leaving abortion laws up to states. After having been elected, the administration has passed legislation that prevents veterans’ access to abortion care and has signed a 2025 executive order on Enforcing the Hyde Amendment, a decision that would end the allocation of federal funds towards elective abortions in federal programs. However, Trump continues to declare that he would not support a nationwide ban on abortion, a move that Republicans recognize as a policy loyal to his presidential campaign.
As a whole, this debate comes down to what life entails and to what extent individuals should value the potential of a human life. Generally, both the right and the left have made progress towards finding common ground; both, for the most part, oppose third-trimester abortions, with 70% of all Americans agreeing on the notion.
Pro Immigration Versus Anti Immigration
There has been an influx in political polarization and sentiments regarding the morality of undocumented immigrants, particularly from Latin American countries. When debating immigration, the parties conflict on two pivotal topics: economic contributions and the application of protected individual rights enumerated in the Constitution.
Firstly, Democrats believe immigrants, both documented and undocumented, can introduce billions of dollars in revenue through taxes. In 2022, a study revealed that undocumented immigrants paid $96.7 billion in federal, state, and local taxes in order to fund social welfare programs that they often lack access to. In 40 of 50 states, undocumented immigrants were recorded as having paid higher tax rates than the top 1 percent of households living within the state. Not only does this introduce the issue of equality under the law, but it also highlights the key contributions that undocumented immigrants make in respect to funding national programs, such as Social Security benefits, Medicare, unemployment insurance, and public infrastructure. Meanwhile, undocumented immigrants are often barred from accessing these programs, but are eligible for different programs, such as food stamps.
Secondly, Democrats argue for increased efficiency within the naturalization process. In 2018, it took over a decade for individuals to apply for a green card (the first part of the immigration process) in which an individual requests lawful permanent residency. Though it may be attained through multiple pathways, those with priority for a green card are often those who seek employment with exceptional capabilities or have family members that are U.S. citizens. Refugees, often confused with undocumented immigrants, do not make up a large part of the population requesting green cards, as the U.S. has placed itself as a host country for asylum seekers. The discrepancy between refugees and undocumented immigrants stems from the complexities of why each group has decided to come to the United States: refugees were forcibly displaced due to persecution or war, while undocumented immigrants flee for a variety of reasons, usually in hope of having a better life. In order to qualify as a refugee in the U.S, one must contact the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) in order to gain refugee status and can then proceed with the Green Card Application for Refugees within one year of coming to the U.S.
Democrats often empathize with the lives of immigrants and seek to improve the current system immediately without burdening the lives of individuals who are undocumented and reside in the U.S.
Republicans, in contrast, believe that immigrants pose a threat to the job market, making it harder for Americans to obtain sustainable jobs. Donald Trump claimed in his 2020 State of the Union Address that “We have a moral duty to create an immigration system that protects the lives and jobs of our citizens.” This reflects the ideas of the current MAGA platform; it presents the idea that an influx of immigration would cause immigrants to take away jobs from American citizens. In reality, while economists concede to the notion that immigration will lead to short-term dislocations in the labor market, studies find that immigration can stimulate economic growth, help replace the growing elderly population in the U.S, and push native-born citizens into higher-paying jobs. As a whole, economists conclude that there is a net positive return in the long-run with immigration.
Republicans also cite concerns of legal precedent. In the context of illegal immigration in particular, allowing undocumented immigrants into the country would defeat the pre-existing purpose of the current citizenship process, which is why many Republicans push for extreme limitations on immigration.
Unlike Democrats, Republicans in recent years have viewed immigration as a threat to American society. The 2024 Chicago Council Survey found that a record-high number of Republicans (83%) consider the increase in immigration and refugees in America as a “critical threat to the country.” These findings are often linked to negative perceptions of other cultures; in fact, 61% of Republicans believe that the cultures brought into the U.S. through immigration are negatively affecting American society. This has caused the media to often generalize the whole right wing, which is different from the current MAGA-dominated Republican Party, as nativists and ethnocentrists.
Since Donald Trump took office in January 2025, the dynamics of public perception on immigration has shifted. More Republicans recorded favoring an increase in support of pathways to citizenship, from 46% in 2024 to about 60% last year. Additionally, across both parties, there has been an increase in concern amongst Black, Asian, and Hispanic individuals regarding them or their families being deported by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).
In light of recent events in Minnesota, it is clear why there has been an increase in fear amongst the public. Videos and reports of Renee Good and Alex Pretti, both of whom were killed in January, 2026 by ICE agents, demonstrate that they were individuals who sought to protect. As a way to justify their role in the homicides, the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security (Kristi Noem) and President Trump have labeled the victims as “domestic terrorists.” The narrative they suggest proposes that these protesters incited violent means against ICE agents which, in reality, was not the case. Synchronized videos from multiple angles indicate that Renee Good maneuvered the vehicle to avoid the ICE agent. In the meantime, the ICE agent was preparing to get a hold of his gun. It wasn’t soon after this incident that ICE agents would use this case as a threat, with one ICE agent warning a different protester two days later, asking “Have y’all not learned from the past couple of days?”
Similarly, multiple angles of how Alex Pretti was assaulted by eight federal law enforcement agents indicates his lack of ability to defend himself, let alone pose a threat to others. He was pepper sprayed, thrown to the ground, beaten, and then shot 10 times, five of which were after he was laying down motionless. This heinous scene, both horrible to imagine and traumatic to witness, depicts the dystopian reality of our nation. When Border Patrol agent Jesus Ochoa and Customs and Border Protection officer Raymundo Gutierrez fired on Pretti, political influence on American society became apparent; it conveys the need to reform sooner rather than later. This fight for justice is no longer about immigration; it has become an issue about what America is and isn’t, and what the image of America should be. While immigrants and those of immigrant descent continue to hide out in Minnesota, neighborhoods have been able to form support systems, from actively tracking ICE agents to providing resources to the families at risk.
Democrats and Republicans each have their own ideas on the ideal approach to short-term and long-term immigration policy, but both parties recognize the urgency for improving the immigration system. Over the course of one year, the three main political groups — Republicans, Democrats, and Independents — experienced a rise in public perception favoring less immigration, with 88% of Republicans declaring so, 50% of Independents agreeing, and 28% of Democrats in alignment. The extent to which this decrease in immigration lasts remains unclarified for each party.
Third Party Constituents
In addition to the leading political parties in the United States, there are third-party constituents that have received attention in recent years, particularly for their flexibility in beliefs and distinction from mainstream media.
Registered American Independents are the third largest constituents in the United States, behind Republicans and Democrats. The beliefs of independent parties vary state by state. Some lean more left, as seen with Senator Bernie Sanders’ Independent Party affiliation but leftist alignment in caucuses. Some, on the other hand, lean more right, as seen with Robert F. Kennedy’s Republican Party affiliation but right-leaning endorsement by the American Independent Party (AIP) in California. As of 2023, 43% of Americans identified as Independents, marking an all-time high. When limited to choosing between identifying as Republican or Democrat, the split is relatively even. This high percentage of Independents may contrast with common perception due to recent events causing shifts in perspectives on certain issues.
The American Green Party is another third party driven by beliefs in anti-war ideologies, environmentalism, social support systems, and authentic democracy. Senator Edward Markey and Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez have pushed for the Green New Deal under this party as a way to combat the tons of carbon emissions released into the atmosphere each year as a result of mass urbanization. Similar to Democrats, the American Green Party pushes for social reform and immediate action through government assistance and moderation.
The Libertarian Party, based on the political philosophy, is deeply rooted in its values of self-determination and individuality from the government. The party supports peaceful immigration, the removal of vaccine mandates — especially after the COVID-19 pandemic — gun ownership, and the eradication of all taxes, beginning with the income tax. It is a right-leaning party and aligns with many Republican perspectives; the main difference is that Libertarians want most policies enacted to an extreme extent in order to “guarantee individual freedoms” in their totality.
Finally, the Constitution Party is a national platform appealing to America’s limited government principle. It highlights that granting additional powers to the federal government will make it easier for the usurpation of liberty. They use founding documents, such as the Declaration of Independence, to justify their anti-abortion sentiments, declaring that they empathize with women who may have been impregnated as a result of rape or abuse, but are also anti-abortion with all cases, regardless of how a woman conceived. The party also utilizes the 10th Amendment and Biblical Scripture as a way to reject — and therefore refuse to recognize — homosexuality. The Constitution Party is traditional in its perspectives, therefore making it similar to Evangelicals, a right-wing political ideology.
Evolution of the Media
Just as it is taught in the classroom, it is imperative that individuals learn from their previous mistakes. Today, that begins with the overgeneralizations exhibited on social media platforms.
For instance, in October 2025, former Fox News political commentator Tucker Carlson interviewed white nationalist, Holocaust-denier, and Stalin-admirer Nick Fuentes on The Tucker Carlson Show podcast. It wasn’t too far after the release of the episode that other Republican figures began attacking Carlson for his alleged leniency during the interview: Texas Senator Ted Cruz called Carlson a “coward” for being “complicit in that evil” — referring to Fuentes’ offensive comment on “global Jewry” — while commentator Ben Shapiro compiled countless videos of Fuentes’ offensive remarks belittling women who were victims of rape, declaring white supremacy, and justifying aggressive behaviors against Black individuals. Other Republicans, such as President Donald Trump and Kevin Roberts — the President of the Heritage Foundation — defended Carlson and claimed that, as a way to distract Americans, the media overdramatized Tucker’s choice to interview Fuentes. Kevin Roberts claims that “the American people expect [Republican politicians] to be focusing on our political adversaries on the left, not attacking our friends [referring to Tucker Carlson] on the right.” Trump’s response, on the other hand, had personalized motives: he states that Carlson has “said good things about [Trump] over the years” while reiterating that the “people have to decide.” Trump’s lack of response in condemning Fuentes’ derogatory claims has received immense backlash, especially from the left.
Not only does this division within the Republican party indicate a common ground with some Democrats on the fundamentals of respect, but it also illustrates how morality is not dependent on party, but instead, human decency. Although everyone interprets this differently across the multiplicity of issues debated today, it is valuable to highlight agreements across parties, even if they are miniscule, because any mutual understanding is a step towards more peaceful and productive discussions. Additionally, it ensures that anyone and everyone is held accountable for the offensive comments they make, regardless of party affiliation.
Furthermore, the portrayal of Democrats as a singular entity through specific social media platforms has fueled the drive of the Republicans to generalize the approaches of Democrats.
These types of misleading comments worsen the current political atmosphere by endangering how individuals openly communicate amidst disagreements. It is important to note that the political spectrum is exactly that — a spectrum. Bringing light to such forms of indirect propaganda helps note which parts of our society need improvement to become less polarized and restore the social fabric without ignoring the discrepancies in opinions.
As American philosopher Jason Brennan summarizes in his book Against Democracy, we need to judge democracy by its results — not its intentions. Unfortunately, its results have not been sufficient. Though he proposes an epistocracy, or a government run by the knowledgeable, the broader application hints at realizing the faults of each party, including one’s own. Ideologies rooted in blatant racism, sexism, or any form of discrimination fall outside this attempt at inclusivity since they overtly harm the sense of cosmopolitanism and diversity that is America. As people continue to engage in discourse about reproductive rights, immigration, and other public dilemmas, it is important to note how Americans engage in these conversations because it may influence policy outcomes as well as the stability of America’s democratic foundation.
As American philosopher Jason Brennan summarizes in his book Against Democracy, we need to judge democracy by its results — not its intentions.