How Americans Were Driven to Extremes

{
  "authors": [
    "Thomas Carothers",
    "Andrew O’Donohue"
  ],
  "type": "legacyinthemedia",
  "centerAffiliationAll": "dc",
  "centers": [
    "Carnegie Endowment for International Peace"
  ],
  "collections": [
    "U.S. Democracy in Comparative Perspective"
  ],
  "englishNewsletterAll": "",
  "nonEnglishNewsletterAll": "",
  "primaryCenter": "Carnegie Endowment for International Peace",
  "programAffiliation": "DCG",
  "programs": [
    "Democracy, Conflict, and Governance"
  ],
  "projects": [],
  "regions": [
    "North America",
    "United States",
    "Middle East",
    "East Asia",
    "Western Europe"
  ],
  "topics": [
    "Political Reform",
    "Democracy",
    "Foreign Policy",
    "Global Governance"
  ]
}

In The Media

How Americans Were Driven to Extremes

American polarization has deep roots that have taken decades to grow and strengthen. The United States may look much like many other angry, divided countries, but its brand of polarization raises specific concerns about the future and functioning of its democracy.

By Thomas Carothers and Andrew O’Donohue

Published on Sep 25, 2019

Source: Foreign Affairs

Every day brings more evidence of the United States’ profound political polarization. Partisan intransigence, vitriol, and divisiveness now contaminate most government institutions. What is more, these sentiments have steadily infiltrated every nook and cranny of American life. The 2020 presidential campaign will only further intensify the country’s partisan tribalism. And despite the lofty praise that news media and civil society heap on politicians who work across party lines, the divisive trend continues with no end in sight.

The more than 35 books published on this subject in the past decade have shed much light on partisan dynamics. Yet almost without exception, they examine U.S. polarization as an isolated phenomenon, separate from the experiences of other countries. In our research and advocacy work, we have taken a different tack.

Collaborating with scholars from around the world, we have examined the striking rise of severe polarization in numerous other democracies, including Bangladesh, Colombia, Poland, and Turkey. In each case we took a close look at the roots of polarization and then traced its trajectory over time, analyzing the main drivers as well as the negative consequences and attempted remedies.

Although polarization in the United States shares some basic features with political divisions elsewhere, we found that it stood out in many crucial respects. American polarization has deep roots that have taken decades to grow and strengthen. The United States may look much like many other angry, divided countries, but its brand of polarization raises specific concerns about the future and functioning of its democracy...

Read Full Text

This article was originally published by Foreign Affairs.

Political Reform Democracy Foreign Policy Global Governance North America United States Middle East East Asia Western Europe

Carnegie does not take institutional positions on public policy issues; the views represented herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of Carnegie, its staff, or its trustees.

More Work from Carnegie China

Commentary
Malaysia’s Year as ASEAN Chair: Managing Disorder
Malaysia’s chairmanship sought to fend off short-term challenges while laying the groundwork for minimizing ASEAN’s longer-term exposure to external stresses.
Elina Noor
Commentary
When It Comes to Superpower Geopolitics, Malaysia Is Staunchly Nonpartisan
For Malaysia, the conjunction that works is “and” not “or” when it comes to the United States and China.
Elina Noor
Commentary
Neither Comrade nor Ally: Decoding Vietnam’s First Army Drill with China
In July 2025, Vietnam and China held their first joint army drill, a modest but symbolic move reflecting Hanoi’s strategic hedging amid U.S.–China rivalry.
Nguyễn Khắc Giang
Commentary
Today’s Rare Earths Conflict Echoes the 1973 Oil Crisis — But It’s Not the Same
Regulation, not embargo, allows Beijing to shape how other countries and firms adapt to its terms.
Alvin Camba
Commentary
China’s Mediation Offer in the Thailand-Cambodia Border Dispute Sheds Light on Beijing’s Security Role in Southeast Asia
The Thai-Cambodian conflict highlights the limits to China's peacemaker ambition and the significance of this role on Southeast Asia’s balance of power.
Pongphisoot (Paul) Busbarat

More Work from Carnegie China

Commentary

Malaysia’s Year as ASEAN Chair: Managing Disorder

Malaysia’s chairmanship sought to fend off short-term challenges while laying the groundwork for minimizing ASEAN’s longer-term exposure to external stresses.

Elina Noor

Commentary

When It Comes to Superpower Geopolitics, Malaysia Is Staunchly Nonpartisan

For Malaysia, the conjunction that works is “and” not “or” when it comes to the United States and China.

Elina Noor

Commentary

Neither Comrade nor Ally: Decoding Vietnam’s First Army Drill with China

In July 2025, Vietnam and China held their first joint army drill, a modest but symbolic move reflecting Hanoi’s strategic hedging amid U.S.–China rivalry.

Nguyễn Khắc Giang

Commentary

Today’s Rare Earths Conflict Echoes the 1973 Oil Crisis — But It’s Not the Same

Regulation, not embargo, allows Beijing to shape how other countries and firms adapt to its terms.

Alvin Camba

Commentary

China’s Mediation Offer in the Thailand-Cambodia Border Dispute Sheds Light on Beijing’s Security Role in Southeast Asia

The Thai-Cambodian conflict highlights the limits to China's peacemaker ambition and the significance of this role on Southeast Asia’s balance of power.

Pongphisoot (Paul) Busbarat