The Polarization of Political Discourse: Key Issues in the 2024 Presidential Race

With the election just a few days away, it seems increasingly likely that a few major issues will dominate the minds of voters on November 5th. Since the race between Vice President Harris and Former President Trump officially began in July, polls have consistently found the economy, immigration, and foreign policy to be the most important issues to voters across all demographics this election cycle. What sets this race apart, though, is the increasing unwillingness of many voters to settle for anything less than their desired policy outcome on whichever divisive issue they hold closest. To understand how this dynamic could materialize in the upcoming election, it’s important to examine how society has become divided within each key issue.

 The nature of political polarization in this country, as former Alben W. Barkley Professor Emeritus Alan Abramowitz explores in his most recent book, has evolved markedly: “it is no longer just a matter of partisanship, but also about social identity, where people see their political affiliations as central to their sense of self.” The binary nature in which many Americans view key issues, combined with the all-or-nothing mindset they often adopt when considering each candidate’s policies, demonstrates the polarized state of the American public and how it defines our political environment. And the consequences, Abramowitz warns, can be dire: "As we approach the 2024 election, there are signals that this polarization could again lead to violence.” 

The economy, determined by nearly every pollster to be the top issue in this year’s election, represents a national concern that transgresses the state of inflation or unemployment. The incessance of the American public that the economy is struggling has baffled mainstream economists as unemployment is low, inflation has stabilized, and GDP growth continues to rise. Clearly, the problem—and how voters view it should be solved—is not one that can be represented by numbers or graphs. Instead, it illustrates just one example of the deep divides that have emerged within American society: voters view the state of the economy from the perspective of their social class. There is a growing supply of academic literature that supports this trend on a global level, suggesting that economic inequality and political polarization move in tandem with one another. The general theory at the forefront of this research, as highlighted by the current political landscape, illustrates how these three economic tiers produce their own ideological silos; the dynamics between the in-group and out-groups create environments in which each sect feels the others are to blame for their struggles. By presenting contrasting tax policies to redistribute wealth, both candidates are attempting to appeal to these different economic stratum and win the battle for the middle class.

A similar divide has emerged with the rising prominence of the national debate surrounding immigration. Politicians, from far-right populists to centrist liberals, have been increasingly deploying anti-immigrant narratives. These narratives not only dehumanize immigrants, the outgroup, but they also create an environment of fear and hostility to motivate those among the ingroup to take action. A recent poll by the Chicago Council on Global Affairs illustrates the impact that this shift in rhetoric has had on the American public, with 52% of Americans deeming immigration a “critical threat” to the nation—the highest level since September 2001. The junctions arise, then, not just between citizens and immigrants, but also within the American population; the contrasting expectations of citizenship conditions draws voters to ideological poles.  

The social splinters that arise from American foreign policy decisions, on the other hand, have materialized a bit differently. Rather than a systemic divide among social classes, as seen in economic and immigration issues, the polarization of the public occurs on the individual or communal level. The Carnegie Endowment for International Peace described the average American’s “constructivist understanding” of U.S. foreign policy as indicative of their respective “vision of the domestic self.” What this means for voters, then, is that each individual will tend to empathize with foreign policy decisions that favor those, at home or abroad, that mirror their own self-identity and oppose those that do not. While this divide looks quite different across each of the various ongoing wars—whether it be religious ties to the conflicts in the Middle East or ideological splits in the Russia-Ukraine war—it produces the same polarizing effect nonetheless. 

So, as we approach the pivotal 2024 U.S. presidential election, it is becoming increasingly clear that our political landscape is shaped by this profound degree of polarization. The issues of the economy, immigration, and foreign policy are not merely policy points; they have become markers of identity for many voters. This fragmentation demonstrates how deeply entwined individual and collective identities have become with one’s political beliefs. When voters view their choices through this all-or-nothing lens, candidates are forced to retreat to one of two extremes. The Trump and Harris campaigns have recognized this trend and responded accordingly, with their advertisements, speeches, and rallies all shaping their messaging to attract the select political alliances that they believe grant them a path to victory. It remains to be seen, of course, which candidate has done this most effectively.