Polarization In America

The United States is known for its deeply religious history, as well as its tolerant religious diversity. However, this religious dynamic has been faced with some shocks. On the other hand, the religious diversity of this nation continues to grow with non-Western religions making a presence in our nation in the recent years. Despite this growth in religious diversity, the United States is still known for its Christian traditions. By looking at these concepts of thinking, it is clear that there are certain patterns that American religiosity is taking. The argument that American religion has been experiencing disturbances within the past decades exhibits the truth for me. The drastic political and religious shifts an after shocks displayed
by the rise of extreme polarization leads me to believe that Robert Putnam and David Campbell’s arguments in How Religion Divides Us and Unites Us. The events that I believe eventually lead to extreme polarization in religion and politics have been spurred by a shock along with after shocks (Robert Putnam, 2010).
According to Putnam and Campbell, the three relevant seismic shocks occurred in three waves. The first wave occurred in the sixties, while the second happened in the seventies and eighties; lastly, the third wave spans from the nineties and beyond. For instance, the early signs of polarization transpired in 1960, where a Catholic candidate, John F. Kennedy assured the public that it is harmless to vote for a Catholic (Robert Putnam, 2010). This is where we see early signs of religious polarization in which “tribal loyalty” divided voters, as each voted based their decision significantly on the candidates religion (Robert Putnam, 2010). This sort of rhetoric still exists today, where certain voters identify with a candidate based solely on their religious affiliation in the hopes of keeping their morals intact. To me, this example of how religion can influence political actions, such as polarization, solidifies Putnam and Campbell’s arguments. As I mentioned before, we see this in American politics now, where presidential candidates, such as Cruz and Clinton discuss their faith on rallies to secure votes from those who similarly identify with their
faith. On top of that, the Sixties exemplified exceptional affluence, expansion of higher education, the civil rights movement, pot and LSD, which created a drastic cultural shift (Robert Putnam, 2010).
This shift led to the doing away of traditional norms, such as sexual norms, where premarital sex has become wildly accepted (rose from 24% to 47%) (Robert Putnam, 2010). To add, many denominations faced problems of clergy losing their calling or way (Robert Putnam, 2010). These very radical examples prompted the rise of religious conservatism in the 70s and the eighties. Similar to the earlier example of “tribal loyalty”, the far-reaching changes in tradition of the previous decade gave rise for an after shock, where the society chose to lean as far away from the extreme side. The GSS evidence in the book shows that college-educated youth reconnected with organized religion (Robert Putnam, 2010). For these next two decades, the conservatism within religion and politics expanded in evangelical Protestant and Christian denominations (Robert Putnam, 2010). Clearly, this after shock is a logical way for a society to shape itself after such serious alteration of the norms. I believe that human nature have no other choice but to seek radical changes truly reject the changes that spoiled customs that they previously cherished. These changes were so stringent that another after shock was recognized two decades after the first one. According to Putnam and Campbell, the
opposition to legalization of marijuana grew from 50% in 1976 to 80% in 1990 (Robert Putnam, 2010). As we can see, it seems rational to agree that this rise in conservatism may be a form of backlash against the Sixties. However, another sign of the after shock was exhibited in the rise of the “Nones”, where individuals responded “none” when asked about their religious preference (Robert Putnam, 2010). This after shock stems from generational differences that we presently experience. Many younger individuals identify as someone who does not adhere to any specific religion. In my opinion, it was the conservative generations that drove younger generations to veer away from that path. Once again, I believe that it is just human nature that those older, conservative generations get replaced by more liberal younger generations. Overall, the arguments provided by Putnam and Campbell resonate images of what America has become in both the religious and political spheres. The religious polarization that occurred in the 60’s during JFK’s candidacy still resonates in the present. More importantly, I believe that these shifts from one extreme to the next is motivated by human nature and rational decision-making to steer far away from the extreme that destroyed their traditions. Also, the fact that these shifts still exist today persuades me to believe in Putnam and Campbell. Plus, the technology that we have today can continue their study to further prove that these shifts are only natural in society.