By Julianna Lucio-Hernandez
In 1861, Americans were divided by a map. In 2025, they are divided by an algorithm. During
the Civil War, the nation fractured into the Union and the Confederate Army. Today, America is
fractured into countless digital echo chambers where citizens don’t just disagree on values but
also basic facts of reality. The development of technology has led to unprecedented political
polarization that raises concern for the future of American democracy.
The Civil War was peak in division but today’s political polarization is unique in kind rather than
degree. During the Civil War, Americans were geographically split but people knew where their
side stood across regional lines. They knew in the South, people were more conservative and in
the North, people leaned more progressive.
However, today’s political polarization is not confined to geography. It is all encompassing and
reinforced daily because of technology. Americans really only came across opposing views when
traveling in the 1860s while today our neighbors might vote differently than we do. Americans
are still divided, just by design rather than distance. Algorithms now do the isolating that
geography once did.
During the Civil War, news traveled slowly, giving more time for people to reflect and react.
Today, news is easily and readily accessible on our phones, computers, and televisions.
The Internet of Things (IoT) reinforces that politics have become deeply ingrained in our society;
our smart-watches and smart-refridgerators can deliver news updates. Unlike the past, we cannot
simply “turn off” exposure to political information.
Our online experiences on social media platforms and search engines are suited to boost content
and content creators we already agree with. These online spaces inhabited by like-minded people
are known as filter bubbles.
Filter bubbles reinforce our opinions, provoke emotional reactions, and deepen confirmation
bias, which is the tendency to focus on information that supports our views while ignoring
information that challenges them. Encountering diverse perspectives online is increasingly
difficult without intentionally seeking them out.
The Civil War’s division was binary whereas today’s divisions are multifaceted. Polarization is
much more complex now as it spans ideology, science, culture, and identity. A single social
media post can mobilize millions within minutes, which can turn political disagreement into
social unrest.
The assassination of conservative activist Charlie Kirk is a perfect demonstration of the high
stakes of political polarization in the United States.
Kirk’s platform spread rhetoric that many argue caused real harm to marginalized communities.
The violent response he faced highlights the dangerous consequences of our divided public
discourse. Some online spaces have responded to the event with celebration, reflecting how
extreme partisanship can distort reactions to violence.
This raises a critical question for anyone who wants to challenge hateful rhetoric: how can we
push back against ideas we do not agree with without compromising the moral principles that
sustain democracy?
In a society built on a social contract designed to limit political violence and chaos, our
responses to extremism reveal as much about the state of our democracy as the extremism itself.
