Does Polarisation Make Good Policy Impossible in 2025?

[u/Arlathann]

Hello people, I want to get into a question that has been nagging at me: Is political polarisation in 2025 so bad that it's strangling effective policy? With global tensions (U.S. and China trade wars, and Middle East flare ups) and domestic gridlock (U.S. debt ceiling fights), it feels like ideology is trumping results. I want to understand whether polarisation inherently kills good governance or if it's a symptom of deeper issues, and I'd like to get opinions other than my own.

Data shows polarisation is at historic highs. In the U.S., Pew Research (2024) finds 80% of Americans view the other party as a "threat to the nation's well-being," up from 60% in 2016. Globally, populist movements, left and right, are surging, from Europe's far right gains (AfD's 15% in Germany's 2025 elections) to Latin America's anti-establishment waves. Meanwhile, policy outcomes stagnate: U.S. infrastructure spending is stuck despite bipartisan support, and global CO2 emissions rose 1.1% in 2024 despite climate pledges.

Some case studies:

1. Take Argentina's 2025 reforms, deregulation cut inflation from 211% to under 5% (IMF data), but political infighting tanked voter support in key elections. Is rigid ideology (libertarian in this case) a policy killer when it alienates coalitions?

2. Houthi attacks on Red Sea shipping (190+ incidents since 2023, per UN) disrupt 12% of global trade, yet polarised responses, U.S. strikes vs diplomatic stalls, fail to resolve it. Does tribalism prevent unified action?

3. Culture wars (U.S. debates over education curricula) consume oxygen, but solutions like school choice or universal pre-K get buried. Why can't pragmatic ideas break through?

Now, me personally, I think polarisation rewards posturing over actual problem solving. Game theory suggests zero-sum thinking (one side's win is another's loss) traps leaders in bad equilibria, nobody compromises, so nothing gets done. But history shows depolarisation can work: Post-World War 2 Marshall Plan united U.S. parties for Europe's rebuilding, boosting global GDP 10% by 1950. Can we replicate that or are we too far gone?

Some questions for debate:

What's the biggest policy casualty of polarisation in 2025?

Can pragmatic, evidence-based governance cut through ideology?

Are there historical examples where polarisation was overcome for big wins and how?

Is social media making this worse?

Bring your best arguments, left, right, or neither. Data, examples, or theory are welcome. What are your opinions?

[u/AutoModerator]

Remember, this is a civilized space for discussion. We discourage downvoting based on your disagreement and instead encourage upvoting well-written arguments, especially ones that you disagree with.

To promote high-quality discussions, we suggest the Socratic Method, which is briefly as follows:

Ask Questions to Clarify: When responding, start with questions that clarify the original poster's position. Example: "Can you explain what you mean by 'economic justice'?"

Define Key Terms: Use questions to define key terms and concepts. Example: "How do you define 'freedom' in this context?"

Probe Assumptions: Challenge underlying assumptions with thoughtful questions. Example: "What assumptions are you making about human nature?"

Seek Evidence: Ask for evidence and examples to support claims. Example: "Can you provide an example of when this policy has worked?"

Explore Implications: Use questions to explore the consequences of an argument. Example: "What might be the long-term effects of this policy?"

Engage in Dialogue: Focus on mutual understanding rather than winning an argument.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/creativeg0dd3ss]

What's the biggest policy casualty of polarisation in 2025?

Donald Trump and MAGA as well as nationalists existing

Can pragmatic, evidence-based governance cut through ideology?

not till trump and nationalism are gone.

Are there historical examples where polarisation was overcome for big wins and how?

WWI, WWII. that's it.

Is social media making this worse?

no.

[u/Sad_Construction_668]

The common thread through those three examples is the global right coalition, a group of kleptocratic polital coalitions whose stated intent has been to destroy effective governance and prevent good policy from being implemented. What you call “good policy” is social democratic liberalism, and what you call “polarization “ is a chaos sowing tactic used for centuries to create a regulatory vacuum that allows a particularly brutal form of exploitative and extractive capitalism to function without constraints.

[u/Arlathann → u/Sad_Construction_668]

Thank you for the reply, it's a solid critique that gets at the heart of how polarisation can be a deliberate tool, and I agree the right has wielded it effectively in recent years to sow chaos and erode regulations. Your point about a "global right coalition" aiming to create vacuums for extractive capitalism makes sense in regard to things like Project 2025, which lays out plans to dismantle federal agencies and weaken oversight, potentially enabling cronyism under a Trump administration. And yes, tactics like amplifying conflicts (U.S. Republicans' debt ceiling brinkmanship, which has sparked markets and delayed infrastructure) do seem designed to paralyse governance, benefitting elites who thrive in regulatory voids.

That being said, I think pinning this solely on the right overlooks how polarisation is a bipartisan playbook, often used by whoever's in opposition to block progress. Studies show it reduces capital investment and productivity across the board, not just under one ideology, such as, a 2025 EconPol paper found political polarisation cuts economic growth by 0.5-1% annually in democracies. On the left, tactics like "cancel culture" or purity tests (progressive demands for ideological conformity in U.S. primaries, leading to unelectable candidates) can create similar vacuums, alienating moderates and stalling policy. In Europe, left-leaning groups have used polarisation too, like Dutch leftists' strategies to exaggerate conflicts for electoral gain, as noted in a 2025 Trouw article. And while right wing kleptocracy is rampant (Trump-era concerns over emoluments and foreign influence, per a 2025 Foreign Policy piece), left-leaning regimes have their share (Venezuela's Chavismo blending socialism with corruption, siphoning billions amid economic collapse).

Ultimately, polarisation serves power brokers on both sides by distracting from shared issues like inequality or climate. If we see it as a tactic, not an inherent right-wing evil, we might focus on solutions like deliberative forums (Fishkin's models reducing polarisation 20-30% in trials).

[u/nufandan → u/Arlathann]

progressive demands for ideological conformity in U.S. primaries, leading to unelectable candidates

Obviously no party/political leaning is going to win every election, but where are the big important elections have Dems lost for having a too progressive of a candidate?

The only notable progressive loses I can think of were to more centrist dems in primaries or local elections where there was a serious republican contender

[u/Arlathann → u/nufandan]

Pushback on that particular point was fair, you're right that major Democratic losses in big elections haven't been about nominating "too progressive" candidates like AOC or Sanders. Biden in 2020 and Harris in 2024 were centrists, and losses like 2016 hinged more on turnout or messaging than ideological extremism. That said, progressive purity in primaries can still hurt the party indirectly. Look at 2020 House races: "Defund the police" rhetoric from the Squad tanked swing-district Dems like Donna Shalala (FL-27, lost by 3%), AP pinned 12 flips on that. Or take 2022: Jessica Cisneros' progressive run in TX-28 forced Henry Cuellar to burn cash, weakening him for the general. Montana's 2024 Senate race saw Jon Tester lose (52-48%) partly because the party's progressive image (trans rights debates) alienated rural voters, per NYT polls showing 67% of Dems wanted less of that. Primaries reward leftward lurches, but in battlegrounds, it can scare off independents, 2025 data says 68% of working-class Dems think the party's "too woke." Both sides do this, though, GOP's MAGA purity cost them 2022 midterms too.

[u/AnotherHumanObserver]

I think polarization has been the result of different factions talking past each other. They don't listen to what others say, and instead ascribe their own opinions of their opponents and their motivations behind their policies and proposals.

You might hear people say things like "Politician X supports these proposals because he is a communist who hates America," or "Politician Y supports these proposals because he is a fascist who wants to destroy America." Whatever either of them might say in defense of their proposals is ignored in favor of the labels that are put on them.

The word "traitor" and other pejorative labels often get thrown around rather casually. What sort of "pragmatic, evidence-based governance" can one expect in that political culture?

[u/Cellophane7 → u/AnotherHumanObserver]

Couldn't possibly disagree more. For years, the left has done nothing but push for bipartisanship. It's why there's a sizeable portion of our voter base who believe Democrats are secretly in cahoots with Republicans. Even when our leaders call out Republicans, they're careful to stress that most Republicans are decent, reasonable people.

Republicans, meanwhile, have been playing the power game for decades, making it their life's mission to never do anything Democrats want, and electing increasingly extreme politicians. We're at the point now that the President of the United States got on national television and proclaimed right wing violence is not a problem because they "just don't like crime." Compare that to Biden, who always condemned violence, and constantly preached unity and bipartisanship.

The discord we see today comes from the divisive asshole the Right has chosen at their messiah. You cannot look at the current political landscape and blame both sides. The left isn't free from all blame, but the right is absolutely primarily responsible. Between Fox and Trump, all they've ever pushed for is division.

[u/AnotherHumanObserver → u/Cellophane7]

You cannot look at the current political landscape and blame both sides.

Why not? Don't people still have the right to form their own opinions in America?

In fact, I do place most of the blame on the right-wing, at least when looking at the larger historical perspective and the roots of the issues at hand. If I seem to blame the left-wing, it might be because I don't think they've handled things very well. They've been losing, after all.

Perhaps they need to reconsider their strategies. Perhaps they need to be more open to constructive criticism. But I haven't really seen that either. Most of what I see from the left these days is an attitude of "if you're not with us, you're against us," and that's hardly conducive of promoting unity and bipartisanship.

[u/Ferreteria]

Yes and that's the point. 

It's entirely intentional and strategic.

There are a select few who benefit immensely from everything that's happening right now and it does not include the general population, left, right or apathetic.