Back to blog

A country divided

See blog

Readers' comments



Firstly, I congratulate "THE ECONOMIST" for taking a stand before election in supporting Obama. Right or wrong, you are unlike some spineless media that comments after the fact.

At this time of economic stress, there are priorities like job creation and fiscal cliff. Without a sound economic base, the notions of big or small government can be postponed for the future. Democrats should commit to an exit date from government interference and stamp all interferences with the free market mechanisms as crisis management. Republicans should co-operate in dealing with the critical issues at hand and not block solutions (may not be perfect) from vested interests. Who to reach out first; both the President and Congress.

The media and hopefully "The Economist" take the lead in being bi-partisan and flesh out any self serving Congressman or Senator whose agenda is blocking resolution to priorities. Take a view (right or wrong) against those who are not putting America's interests first and have their own agendas.


A major factor that plays into this divide is the shape of congressional districts. Each state must 're-district' each 10 years. The consequence is that the party in power (at the 10 year interval) at the state level, decides how these lines are drawn. The GOP draws lines around those areas that benefit their candidates, as the DEMS do also. Some of these maps are totally ridiculous in their makeup... Until this problem with 'redistricting' is solved, America will continue to look like it's divided nearly 50-50... When in reality its not even close to that even a split...

SuperDaveOz in reply to EdgyInChina

America doesn't "look like it's divided nearly 50-50". It IS divided nearly 50/50 - the popular vote makes that clear! The problem you are talking about relates to electoral college votes, where one candidate can have only 50% of the popular vote and yet win a so-called "landslide" victory in the electoral college.

EdgyInChina in reply to SuperDaveOz

No... You're wrong. The problem I'm talking about (redistricting of congressional districts) has to do with congressional elections. It has little or nothing to do with presidential elections, and absolutely nothing to do with the electoral college.
Many congressional districts are drawn such that it allows a 'minority' party (GOP) to look like it has a much bigger segment of the population than it actually has.
Until this problem is solved, it will always give the minority party more clout than the majority party, and it makes it appear that the split is close to 50/50....
I think you're assuming too much if you just look at the popular vote for President... And if you rely on assumptions rather than facts, you will get burned....

Ehkzu in reply to EdgyInChina

Congressional AND state legislature elections.

The largest-population state, Calfornia, adopted a nonpartisan redistricting system over the strenuous efforts of both parties to defeat the initiative (and a second effort to defeat it in the most recent election, which failed).

It was coupled with also adopting open primaries and the radical innovation of having the fall election between the two top vote-getters in the primary regardless of party.

Thus Calfornians have greatly reduced the domination of the parties over the voters.

California is often the leader among the states for new forms of governance, that other states eventually adopt. Banning smoking in public places is one example. Stricter emission regulations for motor vehicles is another.

Party officials--Republican and Democratic--loathe nonpartisan redistricting. Ideal would be a constitution amendment mandating it.

Nonpartisan redistricting, if adopted universally, wouldn't favor either party. The problem is that it also doesn't favor incumbents, who lust after guaranteed re-election like crack addicts lust after crack.

In most states trick redistricting has gone to the extent of being drawn around the home of an incumbent of the opposing party; of gathering all the minority--black or Hispanic--ghettos in a region into one weirdly-shaped district that gives a guaranteed seat to a designated minority pol at the expense of any sense of community in districts, and making surrounding conservative districts so lopsided no Democrat could ever be elected.

This has produced state-level dominance that's actually more dangerous to the country than that of Congress.

But California's example is going to be mighty attractive to voters in other states. It may be hard to deny them now that California's example is up and running.

GH1618 in reply to EdgyInChina

The United States is divided nearly 50-50 as far as the popular vote for president in this election is concerned. The split for members of Congress is somewhat different, and the split in party affiliation in the House may differ from the split in the vote for House seats, but Gerrymandering is not the reason, or at most one of many contributing factors and likely not the most important one. I have discussed this point at length elsewhere, so will not repeat myself here.

Eager Beaver

The USA will never pull together in the way that the author wishes deeply, truly, and madly. That is, of course, unless they start another war. USA! USA! USA!


Why are people outside the U.S. so bothered by honest differences of opinion? Americans aren't. It is how the greater truth is found. Technocrats and ancient elites may sometimes achieve things based on their shared faiths in some set of beliefs, but freedom of speech and association is the answer, whatever the question. Americans don't doubt that even if the rest of the world does.

GH1618 in reply to guest-ijswjjn

Americans aren't? I've met quite a few Americans who get extremely worked up over the fact that some voters have a different opinion on which candidate would make the better President. I someone who claims to be ill at the thought of another four years of Obama. I don't understand it — I've never felt that way when my guy loses (which is most of the time) — but it's there.

SuperDaveOz in reply to GH1618

I know a lot of people who are "ill" at the prospect of another four years of Obama. Many of us can't afford another four years of slow/no growth and little or no job creation. What's hard to understand about that? If you don't care who wins, why bother to vote?

GH1618 in reply to SuperDaveOz

Oh, I do care who wins. But I believe in the strength of the United States. We survived eight yeats of President G. W. Bush, and I believe we can survive any president we elect.

The pain suffered by those who have been spewing vitriol at President Obama in his first term is self-inflicted and deserved, in my opinion.

SuperDaveOz in reply to GH1618

I didn't realize that not looking forward to four more years exactly like the last four amounted to "spewing vitriol". I thought it was just a genuine disagreement about what is best for this country. Something we are entitled to in a democracy.


The plan is that we on the right will carry on as always, and eventually, we will have a majority in the Senate and own the White House. Then we will roll back government drastically, and when the left becomes violent over it, we will deploy our armed forces or police forces and beat these worthless, dirty little parasites to a bloody pulp. Eventually, they will give up, because they will have lost with no hope of recovery.

I see no need for MY side to give up. We just held our numbers in Congress in a Presidential election year - a truly remarkable feat. Meanwhile, Obama lost about 9 million votes from 2008. That means the center is swinging our way.

Tick tock.


Well our leader has worked diligently to create small fractures among the people, playing the rich against the poor, blacks against whites, women against bad Republicans. For a man who promised no red states or blue states his community organizing (agitation) has worked very well to divide the country.

There are people who understand how to bring together people under a vision. This man motivates through revenge. Not unification. It's unfortunate that so many people believed him. We are a forgiving country. He has to "be the change" this time around. There can be no more blaming anyone other than himself. If things do not improve we are not likely to be so forgiving.

Dr Mac in reply to jatakatale

and those people have been voted out of the GOP nominating process and are too pragmatic for the Dems. And the country will suffer, and continue to suffer, until someone with integrity AND A PROPOSED SOLUTION has the naivete and impetus to offer an honest difference.


The Obama victory was a multifaceted expression of the American will. The electorate engaged in a contest between two visions for the near-term that defined the role of government in American society. The Romney vision was individualistic and government reduction whereas the Obama philosophy was community-oriented and government activism as the alternative to personal default. The conservative agenda appealed to the Tea-Party limiting extremists but the progressive optimism of Democratic Party supporters overcame the severely vicious selfishness of the right wing Romney following.
President Obama's genuine care for average, common, struggling, and patriotic people of the USA succeeded in highly populated (comparatively) regions and the electoral system placed his agenda in front of the tightwad gang. The political landscape adapted along with the statement of faith by voters with the defeat of Republican Senate candidates adequate to maintain the majority in that august body by the president's party. The House of Representatives maintained the Republican majority, setting up legislative tension for President Obama's last term of office. This leaves the president's intellectual leadership style at odds with the residue of the 2010 mid-term election that refused to cooperate and collaborate with the White House the past two years. Their intransigence will hamper the president's best intentions for his entire second term because many will put petty, selfish willpower in the way of progress for senseless reasons. Only the upcoming mid-term election of 2014 that holds the extremist accountable can put an end to the Tea Party and its phony revolutionary selfish individualism. Best wishes, Mr. President! We are so proud of you, today.


I feel that the division between parties is a natural outcome of our first-past-the-post voting system. The FPTP voting system boils everything down to two parties. And then when you're left with two parties, those two parties need to define their differences, because defining your similarities makes no sense.

If America modernised its voting system to a proportional voting system, multiple parties and voices would be heard. Not only would that decrease some of the bitterness, but different parties would necessarily work together on issues they agree on and face off against the other party they don't agree with.

When you look at the axes of liberal and conservative, economic and social, our Democratic party is socially liberal and economically conservative. Our Republican party is economically liberal (no rules) and socially conservative (lots of rules). Republicans are hawkish/pro war, Democrats are against war (generally). Democrats are pro labour/union, Republicans are against.

With multiple parties, like a Libertarian and Socialist party, Libertarians would join forces with Democrats on their socially liberal items, but would be against Dems on fiscally conservative issues. Libertarians would join with Republicans on their fiscal libertarian tendencies.

There wouldn't just be red and blue fighting one another. There would be green, purple, grey, and multiple coalitions. The problem with our voting system is that only two colours are expressed, but in actuality, our populace is much richer in colour than that. Personally, I'm a social democrat/green... so would that make me teal?

America needs to change our voting system and our moneyed political interests. Until we do that, we can argue about vitriol and partisanship, but those are symptoms of the system we have in place.

GH1618 in reply to thedr9wningman

Proportional voting isn't more "modern," just different. The French Fifth Republic is much more modern than the US, having been constituted in the mid-20th century. The French National Assembly is elected in single-member districts, as in the US. The difference is that there are two ballots, when necessary. This makes it easier for third parties.

tbbone in reply to thedr9wningman

Here in the UK we have the FPTP system and yet every prime minister we have had has had to move towards the centre of politics to be elected and generally has stayed there (even though some papers like to paint them at the other end of the spectrum).

The FPTP system itself isn't the problem imo, in my (albeit limited) experience and comparing the two systems, I would suggest the biggest problems is the primaries system where the best people to run the country and represent all American's as a whole (i.e. the centrists in both parties) are weeded out for their more extreme counterparts.

GH1618 in reply to tbbone

You are correct that FPTP is not the cause of dominance by only two parties. In the UK, the House of Commons selects the Prime Minister. A third party can participate in this when neither of the two larger parties has a majority by forming a coalition with one of them. That is the current situation in the UK, in fact, as you are well aware. Such a coalition of electors is all but impossible to form, because electors merely cast one vote and are done, without ever meeting as a body (they meet in groups by state).

The British may love their system, but I wouldn't want our president chosen that way.

tbbone in reply to GH1618

Many British do not love our system (albeit the majority prefer it as a recent referendum shows), but my point is simply that FPTP does not cause division between parties and their supporters by itself as the original post states. In fact a two party FPTP system should lend itself to the candidates reaching for the middle ground as the fringes on the left and right have nowhere else to go. It is the distinct set-up of the American system which causes division rather than any over-arching type of voting system such as FPTP or proportional representation etc.


Balderdash! Humbug! The country is not "bitterly divided" -- it functions just fine. A few party hacks may be "bitterly divided" - that's all.

Mark S. Oller in reply to dunnhaupt

There is too little bitterness and division. Both parties are controlled by the same conspiracy, whose real goal to turn us all into lobotomized geldings. Then we will be incapable of doubting the existence of a world wide Islamic terrorist conspiracy as fantastic as SPECTRE.


The Republicans and Mitt Romney lost in 2012 because they overplayed their hand shortly after President Obama was elected in 2008. In my view, arrogance and hubris played a much larger role in re-electing President Obama than bitter partisan politics. From the start, the Republican leadership in the House and Senate (Cantor, Boehner and McConnell) believed that Obama was a weak, accidental, president, with no real staying power, and that the majority of voters would turn against him and support the Republican agenda. Based on this assessment and conclusion, they decided that the best strategy would be to block, or attack after the fact, White House initiatives (e.g., the stimulus package, bailout of Detroit, the jobs bill) assuming that they were on the right side of the issues that this approach would lead them to the White House. Ultimately, this strategy did not work. Couple this with frontal attacks on women and minorities and it is not hard to see why President Obama was re-elected. Post election conciliatory remarks by John Boehner suggests that Republicans may have learned their lesson, and that is a good sign for the US.

A Reasoned Voice in reply to STSPI


But I think a lot of that was also because they are politicians and they were afraid of the influence of the Tea Party and the extremes of their party and influencers.

Nevertheless, it seemed that they were hellbent on making the President fail (or at last not repudiating those who made such extreme statements) . And that wasn't lost on voters.

The reason I say that is that it gives me hope that with the elections they may be more willing to stand up to the extremists in their party.

publius1966 in reply to STSPI

Oh, pleeze! Obama is the one who overplayed his hand from the first, thinking that owning both chambers gave him majesterial perogatives. Cramming a partisan healthcare program, Czaring every incompetent he could find and telling Repubs to go pound salt? What reaction would he expect? The country reacted in 2010 and a reasoned person would have tacked toward the middle and try to negotiate for agreement but not the exalted One. There is enough hubris on both sides and in terms of gain/loss we are at the same spot we were in before the election. The Dems won little they did not already have and same for the Repubs. Let's see who reaches out instead of furthering your the divide by villification.

I think the liberatarians are a problem, and I know they just cost Rick Berg and Denny Thallberg what should have been certain Senate seats - the liberatarian in Montana who ran took six percent of the vote and Montana now has the VERY LEFT Jon Tester in there. Way to go. They decimated the North Dakotans with unrealistic crap. They need to take a hike. I am tired of the fringes, and now we have a lot of the fringe left in the Senate and the White House.



But they shouldn't have to. Before we had the parties and media "collude" encouraging divisiveness, 'liberals' and 'conservatives' could cut a deal.

As In the long run points out, the primary system accrues to itself the most extreme factions and they control who become candidates. It is really up to the party leadership to define their primary rules. The real question now is do the people leading the parties care to broaden their base at all?

The Republicans may face some soul searching, which is all well and good, but I there is one aspect about the soul searching I don't like. This is the notion that the soul searching party has to "change policies" to recruit more of certain demographics.

This is the attitude of shampoo marketers and it seems wrong headed to me to think this way as opposed to the notion of a party being the embodiment of a collection of people who roundly share the same perspective on people and society.

The former will tend to find talking points, ideological "products", to "sell" to "customers", and the latter might actually have something to do with policies people might care about and intend to see effective.

thewisewoman in reply to teacup775

Well, the primaries in the Republican party might have that effect, but in the Democratic party, neither Hillary Clinton nor Barack Obama are in the least extremist, even though they waged an aggressive campaign against each other. So this is mainly a Republican problem, and mainly because of the Tea Party element. Extremists on the left tend to reject both parties as equally corrupt.

Ockham's Beard

It might be possible to account for the knife-edge 50/50 split using the tools of evolutionary biology - as if political attitude was a trait that varied across a population.

In such a case, a 50/50 split that continues over time would be called a stable polymorphism - the paragon example being sex. The reason we have 50/50 men/women is that the fitness of individuals or each sex increases as their frequency in the population decreases, until an equilibrium is found at 50/50.

To make this work for politics, we need to cash out what we mean by "trait" and "fitness" in a way that makes sense in this context.

The trait is continuous rather than discreet, like height rather than sex. But continuous traits can exhibit stable polymorphisms. In this case the trait could be "ideological leaning" towards a cluster of attitudes or worldviews. Some might be moderate, and some might be outliers (extremists).

In this model, the minority would increase in fitness. We could cash this out in terms of people getting sparked up and becoming more vocal and politically active when they feel the country is leaning the other way.

Thus fitness is cashed out as cultural clout or persuasion. As they enter the minority, they get stirred and rally others to their cause. As one side begins to dominate, the other side is strengthened, and the equilibrium is maintained.

Case in point: the Tea Party following Obama's election in 2008.


In political terms, I'd say that process probably started in the 1960s with a lean to the left. Then a pull to the right in the 1980s. Then back to the left in the mid-1990s. Then a sharp tug to the right in the 2000s, followed by a counter-tug to the left in 2008. Finally, a lunge to the right by the Tea Party. Overall, the equilibrium point has moved right, but the distribution has ended up stretched from where it was in the 1960s.

If this was biology, you might expect a speciation event is imminent, as the two bulges on each side refuse to interbreed and drift further apart in terms of their traits. Heck, maybe that's already happened...


If it is the poor Vs rich is the divide in USA, In India we see there is a similar divide (almost 50-50) based on the forward and backward communities. Wile the backward communities are demanding almost 50% reservations(affirmative action), the forward communities are resisting it. There has been a lot of violence too,even during normal times and this violence increases manifold during the election times, mainly in the North India where the caste divisions are severe. In the US, this is a class war and revolutions ( mainly violent) are the products of such divisions.


I think there's another reason too:

You're asking millions of ordinary people who have no background in economics, social studies, international relations, etc, to decide which direction to take the country in. Since there is no way they can know this, they take a guess.

Statistically speaking then, half of them will vote for one option, and the other half for the other.

As the former UK prime-minister Churchill reportedly once said: "The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter"

ppchiral in reply to Droppie

This Churchill quote now sounds all too close to the sentiment of 'the 47%'and is why he is not altogether so universally admired as some like to maintain. I like to think universal education has, since Churchill's day, made some inroad into this bleak view of society.


this has to be one of the most tabloid ready pieces of garbage ever published by the economist.

the nuts on either side gave rise to the 'polarization' myth which lazy or stupid journalists regurgitate and promote. most americans agree on the big issues with the differences confined to the margins. the biggest ideological divide is with the 65+ elderly and the 20 somethings. there is also less pronounced rural/urban, but it all gets muddled in the suburbs.

the "polarization" of america isn't disheartening. a healthy exchange of ideas is to be commended. it's the dimwitted nonsense like this that gets peddled as intelligent analysis and gobbled up by so called enlightened readers that truly dampens the spirits. i hope the author's friends stay out of america if they are so easily duped by such pathetic clap trap.

global-girl in reply to kendynamo

This comment has many valid points, but its vehemence is its most interesting attribute. Instead of making those points, it attacks. The media in all forms has for too long celebrated such grandstanding and over-reaction.

What is needed are true leaders with a calmness that can rise above the constant over-reactions, to strike a path that is simply honest, inclusive and sensible.

I believe that is why Obama won. Not because more people agree with his policies, but because more people believe he would behave with honour under pressure. That is the mark of a true leader.

Polarisation is not the issue here - it's just plain old respect for others. PLEASE let it be newsworthy.

Married to Christ

The United States might be divided, but Utah is United with Romney getting 73% of votes, making Utah the most decisive state in the union. Romney got over 90% of the vote in some counties in Utah..... But blacks only vote for Obama 'cause he's black.


Europeans have solved the problem of ideologically swinging from one extreme to the other a long time ago. Mayor parties, conservative and socialist, have learned that the middle way is the best for everybody. That means each party pushes its agenda within reason. Maybe America will get there one day before it tears itself to pieces?

Y8igmuZhMr in reply to compal

Is this the same Europe that tore itself and major swaths of the rest of the planet into shreds throughout the 20th, 19th, 18th, 17th, 16th, 15th and 14th, 13th and 12th and 11th and for sure 10th Centuries, as well as murderously shooting up the Balkans and the Caucasus in these recent 'non-ideological / middle way years'? It's enough to give feudal rapacity, royal tyranny, religious fanaticism and racial/lingual genocides a very bad name.

compal in reply to Y8igmuZhMr

An altogether good description of humanity and that of course includes Americans, who had their civil war and participated in both recent major ones. Mind you it also managed quite a few minor ones of its own. It also treated some human beings like animals till very recently. To carry on in that vine it condones people to kill each other at a rate unknown in most civilised countries today just to satisfy some idiots’ rights to carry arms. As to religious fanaticism, only Americans managed to kill Drs. performing abortions and the story goes on. Maybe it is best to leave in the political context I meant it, because we are all human beings?


Good article, thanks.
I can remember a time when politics were as divisive and as bitter in the UK; mid-70s to mid-80s or thereabouts. The unions at the time were committed to bringing down the Conservative government of Edward Heath (70-74), and there were some very ugly strikes, the worst of which - in terms of violence - was the miners' strike of the mid-80s (and remember that the unions were formally affiliated with the Labour Party, in opposition to a Conservative party government). I also remember one at the Grunwick photo-processing facility that lasted for months, also very violent. Then there were the riots over Mrs Thatcher's poll tax.

All these years on, it seems both the major UK parties have narrowed the ideological gaps that existed back then. Mr Blair's reforms finally made Labour electable again (after 18 years out of power), by dropping such unpopular and divisive policies such as unilateral nuclear disarmament and mass-nationalization, while the post-Thatcher Conservatives now appear to be perceived (rightly or wrongly) as less heartless.

So it can be done. If anything, having lived through those earlier times and these recents ones in both the UK and the US, I'd say things were much worse in the UK back then than they are in the US now. But I stress that that's a personal perspective.


Excellent article. I could not agree more.
It's extremely frightening to witness the insane partisanship that is tearing the country apart. Incredibly petty, self-serving party politics seems to invariably trump national interests.
Something's alarmingly wrong with this deeply polarised nation??

Aldo Pereira

This election proved that a golden electoral machine blaring slander and lies, pushed by an alliance of fascists, blind fundamentalists, rabid racists, sexists, plutocrats, and their retinues could not mesmerize a majority of decent and humane Americans as to mislead them into reversing the course of History.