• Research
  • Diwan
  • About
  • Experts
Carnegie Middle East logoCarnegie lettermark logo
LebanonIran
{
  "authors": [
    "Thomas Carothers",
    "Andrew O’Donohue"
  ],
  "type": "legacyinthemedia",
  "centerAffiliationAll": "dc",
  "centers": [
    "Carnegie Endowment for International Peace"
  ],
  "collections": [
    "U.S. Democracy in Comparative Perspective"
  ],
  "englishNewsletterAll": "democracy",
  "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"
  ]
}

Source: Getty

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.

Link Copied
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.

About the Authors

Thomas Carothers

Harvey V. Fineberg Chair for Democracy Studies; Director, Democracy, Conflict, and Governance Program

Thomas Carothers, director of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace’s Democracy, Conflict, and Governance Program, is a leading expert on comparative democratization and international support for democracy.

Andrew O’Donohue

Nonresident Scholar, Democracy, Conflict, and Governance Program

Andrew O’Donohue is a nonresident scholar in Carnegie’s Democracy, Conflict, and Governance Program. His research studies democratic backsliding, law and politics, and political polarization, with a focus on Turkey, Israel, and the Middle East.

Authors

Thomas Carothers
Harvey V. Fineberg Chair for Democracy Studies; Director, Democracy, Conflict, and Governance Program
Thomas Carothers
Andrew O’Donohue
Nonresident Scholar, Democracy, Conflict, and Governance Program
Andrew O’Donohue
Political ReformDemocracyForeign PolicyGlobal GovernanceNorth AmericaUnited StatesMiddle EastEast AsiaWestern 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 Malcolm H. Kerr Carnegie Middle East Center

  • Commentary
    Diwan
    Egypt’s Discrete Role in the Ceasefire with Iran

    Cairo’s efforts send a message to the United States and the region that it still has a place at the diplomatic table.

      • Angie Omar

      Angie Omar

  • Commentary
    Diwan
    Realism and the Lebanon-Israel Talks

    Beirut’s desire to break free from Iranian hegemony may push it into a situation where it has to accept Israel’s hegemony.  

      Michael Young

  • Commentary
    Diwan
    The United States and Iran Have Agreed to a Two-Week Ceasefire

    Spot analysis from Carnegie scholars on events relating to the Middle East and North Africa.

      Michael Young

  • Commentary
    Diwan
    Iran Rewrites Its War Strategy

    In an interview, Hamidreza Azizi discusses how Tehran has adapted in real time to the conflict with the United States and Israel.

      Michael Young

  • Commentary
    Diwan
    Trump’s Plan for Gaza Is Not Irrelevant. It’s Worse.

    The simple conclusion is that the scheme will bring neither peace nor prosperity, but will institutionalize devastation.

      Nathan J. Brown

Get more news and analysis from
Malcolm H. Kerr Carnegie Middle East Center
Carnegie Middle East logo, white
  • Research
  • Diwan
  • About
  • Experts
  • Projects
  • Events
  • Contact
  • Careers
  • Privacy
  • For Media
Get more news and analysis from
Malcolm H. Kerr Carnegie Middle East Center
© 2026 Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. All rights reserved.