According to political theorist Chantal Mouffeโs concept of โagonismโ, democracy thrives on competition, not consensus. Healthy democracies don't erase disagreement, but rather channel it into something productive, turning opponents into adversaries who fight within shared institutions instead of enemies who fight outside them.
Politics is fundamentally about power, and power is contested precisely because rival factions each believe they are right. The goal is not to eliminate that conflict, but rather to give it a legitimate arena.
This is different from โantagonismโ, where political opponents see each other as enemies to be defeated. Democracy works when competing factions make their case to voters, who choose the winners. But this only holds if no side expects to win every time. Losers have to accept defeat, trusting they will get another shot next round, and trusting that their position remains legitimate even out of power, not something to be crushed or outlawed.
With American politics placed in this framework, political polarisation is more of a standard to the system than it is an exception, despite many commentators being nostalgic for a past era when โeveryone got along.โ This is an anachronistic fantasy, as American politics has always been about competition over power. However, the reason American politics feels more polarised than before, is because that traditional agonistic framework of American politics is falling away to antagonistic ones.
The framework of the post-Civil Rights Act has continued to disintegrate, with political actors willing to break long-held norms. Over the past decade, language calling those aligned with another party as โtraitorsโ has become more popular, while the Republican Party has taken increasing political action to guarantee its own power beyond traditional political boundaries. This has only intensified in the past year, leaving Democrats trying to figure out how to respond, with a growing call to play by the same rules or even escalate.
With emboldened Democrats looking likely to retake power, and a Republican Party further entrenching itself around a president who treats electoral loss as illegitimate rather than a normal part of the contest, the U.S. could be heading towards unknown territory.
All is fair in war
After the Civil Rights Act in 1964, the U.S. began to enter a normative political field, as some of the last major legal barriers to political participation came down. Politics remained fierce, but within appropriate bounds of competition. Richard Nixonโs Watergate Scandal in 1973 tested the systemโs limits, but the political order survived as Nixon became immensely unpopular and was forced to resign.
That order appeared durable for three more decades, but Barack Obama's 2008 election made clear how fragile it had become as the GOP's far-right wing found a new target. Fringe and conspiratorial segments of the Republican Party, who had created an apocalyptic portrayal of Obama as an unconstitutional tyrant, were growing prominent within the GOP. Racist and more aggressive language slowly began to seep into political discourse.
This harsher language was combined with a Senate leadership that was willing to play โpolitical hardball.โ In 2006, Mitch McConnell was chosen to lead Republicans in the Senate, and during the Obama administration he pushed a new political strategy of complete obstruction.
