Political polarization in the 2024 U.S. presidential election

The 2024 U.S. election season has shone a spotlight on a democracy suffering from widening ideological rifts. While political polarization is not new to American politics, the Pew Research Center has tracked a stark rise in conflict between opposing parties since 1994. Today’s current political divide has escalated into a divisive force that threatens to erode the social fabric behind one of the world’s most important modern democracies. This chasm between the two major political parties has transcended policy disagreements and evolved into an existential clash over the American identity and the boundaries of government responsibility. Nowhere is this fracture more evident than in the discourse surrounding three pivotal voter issues: The economy, women’s health, and immigration.
 

THE ECONOMY

 
Economic concerns consistently shape election years, and 2024 is no exception. In the wake of 2022’s inflation spike, 81% of registered voters listed the economy as the most decisive factor in their voting decisions. However, the political polarization surrounding economic issues in the United States underscores a deeper philosophical conflict over how the nation views individual versus collective responsibility.

Former President Trump’s economic agenda focuses on raising tariffs as high as 20% on imports, rising to as much as 60% from China, as well as widespread tax cuts and deregulation across sectors – all choices that reflect his vision for limited government responsibility. This resonates with a voter pool whose primary concerns about inflation and job security are intertwined with a broader skepticism of state intervention in the market and a belief that America’s economic prosperity will be best achieved through governmental deregulation.

On the other side, Vice President Harris describes her economic outlook as an “opportunity economy.” She frames policies aimed at strengthening Social Security and Medicare, increasing the minimum wage, and investing in social infrastructure as equalizers of opportunity, offering citizens more chances to reach their potential. This “opportunity” approach to economic governance tends to attract voters who view government support as a necessary corrective to systemic inequalities and the excesses of capitalism.

This approach could also have translated into substantial economic growth, as recently seen in the U.S. Latina population. In fact, Bank of America’s inaugural U.S. Latina GDP Report found that U.S. Latinas contributed $1.3 trillion to GDP in 2021. Harris’s agenda has the chance to directly impact this population, where added support could have driven this number even higher.
 

WOMEN’S HEALTH

 
The ideological divide over the role of government is further represented by the issue of women’s health, particularly in the wake of the Supreme Court’s 2022 decision to overturn Roe v. Wade – a key turning point in the nation’s political climate. The verdict has reignited debates over reproductive rights and drawn sharp political lines regarding state regulation of personal morality and bodily autonomy, especially as four of the five justices who voted to overturn it are men, making decisions about issues that will bear them no consequences. When a woman is denied access to healthcare and contraception, it becomes more than just a policy stance – it is a direct attack on her ability to fully participate in society, chart her own future, and succeed in equal measure to her male counterparts. Restricting access to abortion and reproductive healthcare can lead to an increased number of women leaving the workforce, potentially costing the U.S. trillions in GDP.

While over 62% of the American population disagrees with the overturning of Roe v. Wade, partisan differences have widened significantly since the decision. With 80% of Democratic-leaning voters disapproving and 70% of Republican-leaning voters approving, these opposing beliefs – shaped by differing religious values and views on government interference in personal choices – have significantly influenced the 2024 election and the future of women’s health in the United States.

Despite conflicting messages on abortion, a Trump administration will likely pursue policies to further restrict access to reproductive healthcare, potentially dismantling federal protections and cutting funding for state-run health programs. Conversely, a Harris administration would have likely expanded these services, framing reproductive rights as a basic human right and a key component of social justice. This divergence reflects not only a fundamental clash over the values that guide American society, but ongoing tensions over the role of government in personal and public decision-making.
 

IMMIGRATION

 
However, when it comes to immigration issues, political polarization goes beyond opinions on state interference to touch on broader anxieties about demographic change and national identity. Since Trump’s first presidential campaign in 2016, immigration was narratively framed as a “threat to American-ism.” Stricter border controls and limited pathways to citizenship have been presented to voters as the only solution for a nation strained by public resources. While this perspective is often displayed as a way to protect jobs, it becomes more polarizing when it reflects an underlying fear of losing an “American identity.”

In contrast, Harris’s campaign frames immigration as a vital contributor to national economic and cultural innovation. It particularly emphasizes the economic benefits of Latino immigrants, a population that starts new businesses at double the rate of U.S.-born citizens and funnels an additional $800 billion into the U.S. economy each year.

This is especially relevant right now, as the year’s recent political turmoil in Venezuela will likely spur another wave of immigration. Over the past decade, the number of Venezuelan immigrants residing in the U.S. for five years or less surged from 40,000 in 2010 to 215,000 by 2021. This is a significant figure, as Venezuelan immigrants are the most likely among Latino groups to hold a bachelor’s degree, positioning them to make significant economic contributions upon arrival. For Democratic-leaning voters, supporting this influx of talent aligns with improved economic stimulus and a reaffirmation of America’s historic commitment to diversity and inclusion.
 

WHAT IT MEANS

 
Once the 2024 election results are settled. The implications of political polarization, as demonstrated across these opposing opinions on three key voter issues, extend far beyond the final electoral outcome. These differences regarding governance and national identity are changing how Americans see their neighbors, their institutions, and the legitimacy of the democratic process. As political scientist Lynn Vavreck commented, the average American voter has become “calcified;” polarization is not just causing a basic divide, but fully binding individuals within their own ideological spaces. Ultimately, this means that the 2024 election will be less about persuading undecided voters and more about mobilizing an entrenched base, raising the stakes for both parties.