https://www.brown.edu/news/2020-01-21/polarization
Edited by Asmi Kansagra, Mey Silvey, Amelia Cantwell, & Owen Andrews
Democrat or Republican? It’s perhaps the most common question posed in America when asking about someone’s political beliefs. Many people treat political parties as comprehensive packages: economic, social, foreign, and environmental policies are expected to fit neatly under one label or the other. Yet the nuance of the widespread political spectrum is rarely ever that simple. Nevertheless, voters are expected to choose a party that aligns with their beliefs, even tgougg parties often bundle together positions on seemingly unrelated issues. As a result, assuming that someone’s party affiliation accurately reflects their stance on every political issue overlooks the nuance and contradictions that can exist within an individual’s beliefs. Many voters remain politically loyal to a party despite expressing open disagreement with particular stances of it, whether that be certain policies or candidates. They might adopt a hypocritical position, criticizing a politician from the opposition party for doing what one of their own has done in the past. They might condemn excessive government spending by one party but justify their party’s spending by classifying it as necessary. Although different policies can be evaluated differently depending on specific purpose, the main inconsistency arises when voters apply different standards to policies that are similar simply because of the party they come from. They might even modify their views and opinions of controversial political events in accordance with their party’s association to it.
These inconsistencies beg the question: why does the weight of political party loyalty sometimes outweigh the importance of holding true to personal morals?
The most obvious answer is that political party loyalty, while ostensibly purely political, is rarely ever just that. Politics is often a core component of an individual’s identity, with party affiliation being an amalgamation of various emotions and opinions one holds. With such strong ties to it, it follows that changing or questioning party affiliation means changing or questioning an entire part of one’s identity. From a psychological lens, this topic can be explained through concepts such as cognitive dissonance, social identity, confirmation bias, and motivated reasoning.
If there’s one thing that’s true about most humans, it’s that we like to believe we abide by a personal moral code that governs most of our actions and beliefs. Therefore, it is only natural to feel uncomfortable when we think one thing and do another. First proposed by social psychologist Leon Festinger in 1957, cognitive dissonance is the mental discomfort you feel when your beliefs, thoughts, or actions contradict each other, which motivates you to change one of them to feel more consistent. Politically, this could manifest as a voter holding a certain view on an issue and their party taking an alternative stance. For example, a low-income voter who seeks government assistance might support their party advocating for tax cuts for the wealthy despite it not benefiting them. Consequently, they might find themselves at a crossroads needing to decide between wanting better for their family and friends in similar financial situations or remaining loyal to politicians whose policies they’ve agreed with in the past. Many might simply see themselves as an extension of their party’s platform and attempt to fit the social and economic mold of its agenda. For example, they might evaluate their economic instability and convince themselves to work harder, rather than accept government welfare assistance which they view as a “copout.” Alternatively, they might blame their financial instability on external factors, such as government policies or other groups in society, rather than their own political party’s decisions. They may also rationalize their party’s economic platform by believing in “trickle-down economics,” the idea that policies benefiting wealthy individuals and businesses will eventually improve economic conditions for everyone.
The contradiction between voters’ beliefs and their political actions does not always concern a single issue, however. Party loyalty can influence how voters evaluate policies across unrelated sectors as well, from the economy to education to social welfare. Rather than simply overlooking a single difference, voters grow accustomed to accommodating a set of them. Every one of these disagreements is not a clear-cut example of cognitive dissonance, as at times it can simply be the voter choosing the lesser evil. However, this repeated readjusting of standards to preserve party loyalty can become a subconscious force to reshape beliefs in the long term.
Cognitive dissonance sits in a unique position in that it is not exactly lying, but it is not exactly telling the truth either. Therefore, those who struggle with it often don’t recognize the extent of their actions or end up feeling guilty because they feel prevented from picking a side. Cognitive dissonance can also manifest itself politically on a more subconscious level. Many voters develop their political beliefs through political socialization, the process by which individuals acquire political values and attitudes from family, friends, religious communities, and other social influences. These early influences can shape not only what people believe but also how they participate in politics, including their voting behavior. Even when voters later develop different political views, they may be more inclined to return to the political beliefs and behaviors they grew up with because these patterns feel familiar and comfortable.
Humans are social creatures by nature. We seek groups that share our values and experiences because they provide a sense of belonging. Whether through nationality, religion, or hobbies, under the social identity theory, these groups are core components of our self concept and promote a shared sense of belonging. It also can create an “us vs. them” mindset, under which we tend to favor members of our own group against others. Opposing political parties are often perceived as morally juxtaposed to our own and at times are even seen as a threat to “our” way of life. This is why loyalty to a party is oftentimes more focused on disproving loyalty to another.
Consider the 2024 presidential election. A Republican voter might have disagreed with Donald Trump’s aggressive tariffs due to the Republican party’s traditional platform of minimizing federal economic intervention, but may have still voted for him because they viewed the Democratic Party as a greater threat to conservative social values. On the contrary, a Democrat voter might have opposed Kamala Harris’s stance on stricter border control, which was uncharacteristic of many of her progressive contemporaries, but still voted Democrat because it’s ingrained into their identity. Therefore, political loyalty often depends less on complete agreement with a party’s policies and more on how strongly voters identify with it compared to its opposition.
People often strive to see themselves as logical and objective, believing that their judgements are based on evidence rather than emotion. However, biases still often exist on a subconscious level. Motivated reasoning explains how people interpret information in ways that support their existing beliefs and help them reach conclusions they are already inclined to favor. Rather than evaluating every piece of evidence equally, individuals often place greater trust in information that reinforces their political views while scrutinizing or dismissing information that challenges them.
One of the defining factors of any election is a debate. It is often the culmination of months of campaigning and a way for politicians to broadcast their platforms to a wider audience than before. Imagine during one of these debates, a candidate says something incorrect. A voter who supports their party might view it as an understandable mistake, while one who opposes their party might see it as proof of incompetence. In either scenario, their existing political loyalty can influence which interpretation they form. When people already hold certain beliefs on an issue, they are more likely to filter out information that doesn’t align with those beliefs, or simply warp into a way that it does.
Rather than a conscious effort, this process often occurs without the recognition that people are being partisan in their beliefs. It is amplified by the rise in political echo chambers, whether that be more polarizing news outlets or social media algorithms that are carefully designed to reinforce the same narratives with high frequency. This isolation from opposing views is another aid in motivated reasoning as it is easy to reach the conclusion we want when all the sources we consume are saying the same thing.
Considering all of these psychological processes, it is also important to note that party loyalty is not always a subconscious notion that is out of our control. As political parties are incredibly large and diverse in nature, it is natural that voters who belong to them will not agree on every single issue. Political identity is one way of how we represent ourselves and cannot be separated from other aspects of our lives, meaning it should account for our own thoughts, emotions, relationships to others, memories, and many other things that make up human identities. Political parties are one way of expressing these political identity, but they should not be the sole authority to guide all our decisions and beliefs.