Is Morality as Bleak as it Seems?

There has been a clear surge in polarization and radicalism in recent years. The leadup to the US election has ensured a constant influx of divisive topics to debate, from border policy to abortion to war in the Middle East. The effects of this polarization are apparent—assassination attempts against Trump demonstrate how the threat of political violence has worsened, support for a party is enough to stereotype one’s personality, and hostility is directed not toward an opposing viewpoint but rather toward those who hold that view.

As Nicholas Kristof noted in his article for the NYT, “the liberal impulse has been to demonize anyone at all sympathetic to Donald Trump as a racist and bigot,” and the republican campaign has taken the same approach (Kristof, 2024). These attacks stereotype the other party, generating animosity rather than arguing against specific policies or statements. A study by the think tank Carnegie Endowment for International Peace found that this tendency to dislike other communities constituted the main source of overall polarization, with ideological differences taking a back seat (Kleinfeld, 2023). This dislike of other communities comes despite significant demographic overlaps, such as between Democrats and Republicans. Surveys show both parties have similar proportions of voters who are suburban (57% for Democrats and 53% for Republicans in 2022), went to college (80% to 71%), are aged 30-49 (29% to 24%), the list goes on (Hartig et al. 2023). Even for categories with obvious discrepancies, such as religion, overlap between the two parties still constitutes the majority of people. By accusing others of being immoral despite holding similar perspectives, the definition of immorality is diluted so that true evil is lumped in alongside policy disagreements. Ignoring who these attacks are directed towards, the constant use of degrading rhetoric can render it meaningless; despite calling Trump a fascist and felon, his support has barely waned while these terms have lost their sense of urgency.

Desensitization to morality is made even easier when facts are distorted, blurring the boundary between vice and virtue. Alongside the rise of influencers like Andrew Tate, topics like misogyny, which used to be clear vices, have been repackaged into virtues correlated with “success.” Tate constantly flaunts his wealth while making public statements describing women as "intrinsically lazy" or stating there is "no such thing as an independent female." Yet, he has amassed over 10 million followers on Twitter, with support concentrated among young men. While the majority of his audience may not agree with the misogynistic statements he makes, the fact he can access such a large viewership is concerning. Thanks to similar trends on social media, increasing numbers of impressionable people are encouraged to deny their flaws, sacrificing opportunities for reflection and change for a boost in self-esteem.

Given these examples, moral deterioration appears limited to social media and politics for now. Our moral standards hold up well in person, but if the root of the issue is based on our physical world, can we guarantee that effects will not begin to surface in the same place? When considering reasons for increased polarization, several come to mind. Social media’s amplification of divisive content undoubtedly contributes, but as a root cause, there are still questions that remain unanswered. Social media, in one form or another, has existed for the entirety of the twenty-first century, which doesn’t coincide with the perceived increase in polarization. Perhaps a more reasonable explanation could come from the General Strain Theory in sociology, which predicts that various strains, such as failure to meet goals, discrimination, or the loss of something valued, create negative emotions that are released in forms such as crime or other coping mechanisms. 

In searching for the various strains in society, the most obvious are the core issues of the 2024 election, with the economy at the forefront. Regardless of the true state of the economy, a survey by John Burn-Murdoch for the Financial Times shows that the majority of Americans believe it is deteriorating (Burn-Murdoch, 2023). This outlook is driving people to act accordingly, prioritizing methods of improving their own conditions over morality. A survey conducted by the Pew Research Center demonstrates that 93% of Trump supporters view the economy as a top issue, while only 68% of Harris supporters do (Pew Research Center, 2024). This suggests that the belief in Trump’s ability to fix the economy is the main factor driving people to disregard his crimes and support him as president. Similarly, Andrew Tate’s popularity is largely driven by the appeal of wealth and success. These public figures, and politics or social media in general, provide a convenient outlet for people to vent their frustration towards many of these core issues, acting as the coping mechanisms predicted in the General Strain Theory and driving moral deterioration online. If this hypothesis is correct, the same economic dissatisfaction that encouraged fascism in Nazi Germany is present in America today—which is not to say that it could have anywhere near the same effect. On the bright side, all indicators save for public opinion show an improving economy, which also means that we are on the path to recovery. Whether there are other significant strains in society or whether this theory will hold up in real life is unknown. No matter the outcome, it is important to remember that polarization is reversible and to recognize that there is a rationale behind the majority of choices you oppose, even if it may not seem like it.