This is the second article in the series “America in the Age of Polarization”, where Emil Bender Lassen (MPP ’25) drives 9,000 miles around the US to speak to journalists, researchers and voters on an election that threatens to further divide the country. He hopes to better understand the rising trend in polarization, how it impacts the role of journalists – and maybe even uncover ways the trend could be reversed.
How do you maintain that conscious step back from day-to-day events that allow you to observe the bigger picture, even in the face of “breaking” events? The perspective that is not caught up in the short-term sensation but attempts to draw some more fundamental conclusions about the direction of an issue?
The short answer is that you don’t. You can’t.
Since I wrote my last article[i]– from a little bakery in New Orleans on July 10th – the 2024 general election has been turned upside down. Three days after I clicked “send”, Trump was nearly assassinated. Nine days after that, President Biden – the main focus of my first article, given his lackluster debate performance – dropped out of the bid to remain as the President of the United States.
In the hours and days that followed, Vice President Harris emerged as the clear Democratic candidate in a show of force that left several Democratic heavyweights and strategists surprised: wasn’t she the candidate whose 2020-primary-campaign was deemed “a mess”?[ii] But here she was, over $200m dollars raised in a matter of days,[iii] bringing energy to the campaign trail that Democrats have not dared to dream about in the past months.
Now that the dust have settled a bit – and my road trip has brought me close to the home turf of Vice President Harris in San Francisco – I am left wondering what this string of major events (which, by the way, also count the Republican National Convention and the announcement of Senator JD Vance as Trump’s running mate) will mean for the prospects of America’s ideological and affective divides healing any time soon.
From the conversations I have had as I have been making my way through Texas, New Mexico, Arizona and Nevada before reaching the Golden State, these three potential implications stand out to me.
The emergence of an icon
A raised fist. Two thin streams of blood on the cheek. Dark-suited Secret Service agents. An American flag waving in the background.
“Fight! Fight!”
The picture by the Associated Press’s Evan Vucci went instantly viral when it was released mere minutes after the attempt on Trump’s life, further solidifying the former President’s reputation as an iconic figure in American politics, whether you like him or not. It is not necessary to go deep into the research on polarization to conclude that such figures are one of the cornerstones in the rising trend of polarization.
Photo by Evan Vucci of the Associated Press
“Even in democracies as different as Colombia, Kenya, and Poland, many of the roots, patterns, and drivers of polarization were the same. Particularly striking was just how decisive polarizing leaders often are,”[iv] write Thomas Carothers and Andrew O’Donahue, for the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.
They go on to note how iconic political figures have relentlessly inflamed basic divisions and entrenched them throughout society, often with resounding electoral success, by aggravatating tensions “not only by demonizing opponents and curtailing democratic processes but also by pushing for radical changes.”[v]
For Democrats, the assassination attempt brought an enormous challenge: how do you attack a candidate who was just shot at? For Republicans, however, the shooting had a galvanizing effect. Despite maintaining a Park Avenue residence for most of his life and touting his success as a billionaire real estate tycoon, the latter years of Trump’s life have been dedicated to crafting the appearance of a person willing to stand in between Americans who feel forgotten by the political system and the perceived dangers around them. For many conservatives, the assassination attempt represents a more literal interpretation of Trump being in the crosshairs, and once again surviving.
And Trump himself posted that “It was God alone who prevented the unthinkable from happening. We will fear not, but instead remain resilient in our faith and defiant in the face of wickedness,”[vi] leaning into the martyr-like role that a large group of his supporters have embraced after the assassination attempt. So I was not surprised when I spotted the iconic picture on a t-shirt in San Francisco’s Chinatown, available for purchase less than two weeks after the attempt on his life.
In the early days after the assassination attempt, journalists pondered: could this actually be a moment of national unity? An event so fundamentally wrong that both voters and candidates rise above the partisan divides and agree that it is time to “lower the temperature” as Biden called for after the event?[vii]
In SF’s China Town, it is already possible to get a t-shirt with Vucci’s iconic picture.
The conservative-leaning Washington Examiner ran a story headlined “Trump rewrites Republican convention speech to focus on unity not Biden”, in which writer Salena Zito interviews Trump about his then-upcoming speech at the Republican National Convention.[viii] “Trump said his speech will meet the moment that history demands. ‘It is a chance to bring the country together. I was given that chance.’”[ix]
So should we conclude that the assassination attempt finally brought some national unity to the campaign trail that voters across the aisle have been craving?
No. It did not take long before both campaigns went back to a rhetoric resembling what we saw prior to the assassination attempt. Just this Wednesday, Trump attacked the racial identity of Harris at the National Association of Black Journalists convention. “She was always of Indian heritage, and she was only promoting Indian heritage,” Trump said.[x] “I didn’t know she was Black until a number of years ago, when she happened to turn Black, and now she wants to be known as Black. So I don’t know, is she Indian or is she Black?”[xi]
Increased ideological polarization?
Going from two octogenarians fighting over who’s older, who has a stronger record, or who has a better golf game, the Democrat’s switch to Harris has allowed the fault lines between the parties to be more clearly represented by their candidates. It is a former prosecutor vs. a convicted felon. The progressive California liberal vs. the conservative Republican. The public servant vs. the successful businessman. A Black woman versus a white man.
The differences between Harris and Trump are remarkable, but the juxtaposed list of identities from above are not the platforms themselves. Still, it is fair to say that the ascendancy of both Harris and Trump VP pick JD Vance could pull the parties’ stances further apart, at least for the time being.
Harris ran to the ideological left of Biden in her 2020 Democratic primary bid, and endorsed policies which some political reporters highlight could pose a challenge for her campaign. Tal Axelrod of ABC News, for example, has covered this story and highlights positions including ending the filibuster to adopt a “Green New Deal,” starting from “scratch” on U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and making it a civil offense rather than a criminal one to cross the border illegally.[xii]
On the Republican side, Vance is seen as representing a more conservative political standpoint than Trump, particularly on cultural and social issues including abortion,[xiii] which is expected to be a piviotal issue in the general election. His conservative views on family have also drawn attention, with the hopeful VP having said: “You know, I worry that it makes people more sociopathic and ultimately our whole country a little bit less, less mentally stable,” when asked about people deciding not to have children.[xiv]
What follows is that the new election line-up might actually lead to more ideological polarization – perhaps replacing some of the affective polarization – as the actual policy differences between the two sides have grown.
The implications of a “reset”
The final implication I will highlight is that the dramatic events of the past weeks have both “reset” the election and significantly increased engagement in the election.
With each party’s tickets remade and the field reset, Democrats hope that states that were previously thought to be unwinnable in 2024 can be brought back into play. In a recent “Pod Save America” episode,[xv] guest host and MSNBC journalist Ali Velshi argues that we might be looking at as much as 10 or 13 states being brought into play by the new realities compared to what most political reporters thought were at most 7 states and more likely 4-5 states before Biden dropped out.
Velshi goes on to discuss how Kamala Harris, despite being Vice President, remains a relatively unknown candidate when it comes to her actual positions – as is normal for the Vice President, given their role standing in the shadow of the President.[xvi] This feeling is supported by focus group interviews as well, particularly among undecided voters, which will decide the election.[xvii] As such, she now has an opportunity to redefine herself at a national stage.
What all this means for polarization is too early to say: if the increased political engagement and more swing states in play translates into a more issue-focused and less intense campaign response, we might see positive outcomes and less affective polarization stemming from the reset.
Conversely, the arrival of the political “circus” to more states than expected might frustrate those already overwhelmed by politics. Both campaigns are flush with cash following the last weeks’ events, with Harris having raised $310 million in July, entering August with a $377 million warchest and Trump’s campaign having raised $139 million in July, entering August with $327 million.[xviii] How this plays out will be interesting to follow in the coming weeks.
The questions for the road ahead
The jury is out on the three implications I highlight above and I will look forward to see if they hold as campaigns, journalists and voters reposition themselves after some dramatic weeks. Looking ahead, I see a number of interesting questions emerge in the intersection between polarization and the 2024 general election.
The first one is whether we will return to full-scale attack-focused campaigns from both sides or if the assassination attempt and reset does in fact lead to some degree of a political cool-down. Relatedly, there is an interesting question concerning what kind of candidate Kamala Harris wants to be. Will she attempt to rise above the polarization and be the “bigger” person? Or does the campaign deem that hitting Trump at his own “level” is more efficient? And what message and tone-of-voice will the Republican campaign carry in the coming months?
The second area concerns VPs: what kind of person will Harris pick as her running mate? And will that transform the nature of the Democratic ticket in any significant way? Will Trump’s pick of JD Vance prove successful or will the discussion around JD Vance as a “hubristic”[xix] pick made in a time of strength gain further momentum and drive a narrative stating that the Republicans regret the pick given Vance’s lack of obvious value-add to the GOP ticket in terms of voter appeal, political platform or ability to potentially carry a decisive state?
Finally, it will be interesting to follow the level of political engagement in the general populace. Can the historically early onset of the campaigns (exemplified, for example, by the early first debate) keep momentum and maintain engagement or will voters lose interest too early? And how will the campaigns respond if the latter takes place? It is not hard to imagine that the response to waining interest could be over-simplification of differences and attempts to appeal to voters on the most divisive issues, which could lead to a vicious polarizing cycle.
As for me, I now have about 4,000 miles left on my road trip. You can follow the journey via our Instagram page or tune into the podcast episodes we put out along the way.
Special thanks to Jane Petersen for her editorial support in the crafting of this piece.
[i] Emil Bender-Lassen, “America in the Age of Polarization: Dems Scramble and Journalists Reflect after a Chaotic Debate,” HKS Student Policy Review, July 15, 2024, https://studentreview.hks.harvard.edu/america-in-the-age-of-polarization-dems-scramble-and-journalists-reflect-after-a-chaotic-debate-student-blog.
[iii] Kanishka Singh, “Kamala Harris Campaign Raises $200 Million in a Week | Reuters,” July 28, 2024, https://www.reuters.com/world/us/kamala-harris-campaign-raises-200-million-one-week-2024-07-28/.
[iv] Thomas Carothers and Andrew O’Donohue, “How to Understand the Global Spread of Political Polarization,” accessed August 4, 2024, https://carnegieendowment.org/posts/2019/10/how-to-understand-the-global-spread-of-political-polarization?lang=en.
[v] Carothers and O’Donohue.
[vi] Emma Marsden, “Donald Trump Sends Personal Message After Shooting: ‘Stand United’ – Newsweek,” July 14, 2024, https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-personal-message-shooting-assassination-attempt-truth-social-pennsylvania-1924927.
[vii] Michelle Stoddart and Justin Gomez, “Biden Calls on Americans to ‘lower the Temperature in Our Politics’ in Wake of Trump Assassination Attempt,” ABC News, accessed August 4, 2024, https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/biden-orders-review-security-measures-trump-assassination-attempt/story?id=111930628.
[viii] Salena Zito, “Trump Rewrites Republican Convention Speech to Focus on Unity Not Biden – Washington Examiner,” July 15, 2024, https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/campaigns/presidential/3082180/trump-rewrites-republican-convention-speech-focus-unity-not-biden/.
[ix] Zito.
[x] Eric Deggans, “5 Takeaways by a Longtime NABJ Member from Trump’s Appearance before Black Journalists,” NPR, August 1, 2024, sec. Politics, https://www.npr.org/2024/08/01/nx-s1-5060269/trump-nabj-appearance-controversy.
[xi] Deggans.
[xii] Tad Axelrod, “Moore Brushes off Concerns over Harris’ 2020 Campaign: ‘It Was Pretty Long Ago,’” ABC News, accessed August 4, 2024, https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/maryland-wes-moore-brushes-off-concerns-harris-2020-campaign/story?id=112331964.
[xiii] Em Steck and Andrew Kaczynski, “JD Vance Said in 2022 He ‘Would like Abortion to Be Illegal Nationally’ | CNN Politics,” accessed August 4, 2024, https://www.cnn.com/2024/07/17/politics/kfile-jd-vance-abortion-comments/index.html.
[xiv] Andrew Kaczynski and Em Steck, “It’s Not Just ‘Cat Ladies’: JD Vance Has a History of Disparaging People without Kids | CNN Politics,” accessed August 4, 2024, https://www.cnn.com/2024/07/30/politics/kfile-jd-vance-history-disparaging-people-without-kids/index.html.
[xv] “The Race to Define Kamala Harris,” Crooked Media (blog), accessed August 4, 2024, https://www.crooked.com/podcast/kamala-harris-election-trump-project-2025/.
[xvi] “The Race to Define Kamala Harris.”
[xvii] “What Undecided Voters Think of Kamala Harris (Ep. 6),” Crooked Media (blog), accessed August 4, 2024, https://crooked.com/podcast/what-undecided-voters-think-of-kamala-harris-ep-6/.
[xviii] Brian Schwartz, “Kamala Harris Raised $310 Million in July, Dwarfing Trump Haul for Month,” CNBC, August 2, 2024, https://www.cnbc.com/2024/08/02/harris-campaign-fundraise-trump-election.html.
[xix] Matt Dixon and Vaughn Hillyard, “RNC Day 3 Highlights: JD Vance Makes First Speech as Trump VP Pick; Biden Tests Positive for Covid,” NBC News, July 18, 2024, https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-election/live-blog/-trump-vance-rnc-republican-convention-live-updates-rcna161241.