Throughout my time as a Senate page, I had the privilege of sitting in on three floor sessions. As I scrambled to pass out notes, or deliver documents and coffee to various senators, I felt as engrossed in the legislative process as I will ever be. I watched bill after bill be proposed, presented, and voted on in a manner of minutes. The biggest shock: almost every bill went through with unanimous ‘ayes.”  As a teenager who cannot vote and is just beginning her journey into the world of politics, the idea of a polarized government is one that I believed to be true at all levels. In the media, and in my home, I hear about how our government is essentially impenetrable—no progress is being made to further our country because of disputes between the polarized parties. I imagined this stagnation must exist at all levels of government, both the state and the federal.

In my role as a page, it was my duty to assist and serve all senators in office, not only the ones that belonged to my party of choice. As I branched out and got to know the officials of the opposing party, they were welcoming and agreeable. They were friendly and open to the ideas and goals of the other party, quite unlike the information I had been consistently fed. Going into this program, I had the impression that members of the separate parties would possess radically different opinions, and thus harbor a strong distaste for their opponents. To realize this was false was immensely comforting, as I now knew that Washington’s officials had chosen to put aside their differences for the good of the people. Though I was proud to witness the progressiveness of Washington’s government, I stand firm in my belief that federal polarization is not the result of genuine disagreement, but bigoted dislike.

The Democratic Erosion Consortium reaffirms my belief, stating, “Beyond Conflict employed a ‘Feeling Thermometer’ to measure dislike in their survey, with feelings towards the other party being warmest at 100 and coldest at zero. The findings indicate substantial levels of inter-group dislike in the US, with Democrats rating their feelings towards Republicans at an average of 28 points, while Republicans rated Democrats an average of 34 points.” The intense detestation that a party holds for the other could easily influence the decisions made during a session. While it is proven that there is some overlap between parties on major world issues, the stereotype of our government being so chronically polarized has poisoned the minds of politicians and voters alike. In some cases, solutions will be proposed by one party, only to be crushed by the other, despite the lack of a counterproposal. Carnegie Endowment for International Peace explains, “only 18 percent of Republicans and Republican-leaners feel gun violence is a major problem (versus 73 percent of Democrats and Democratic-leaners). So, despite the significant policy overlap, only one side is motivated to put the issue on the agenda.”

The radical polarization that the media radiates out to the world comes with major consequences for American citizens and voters. Carnegie Endowment for Internation Peace offers “voters exposed to more polarizing rhetoric from leaders who share their partisan identity are likely to alter their preferences based on their understanding of what their group believes and has normalized—particularly among primary voters whose identity is more tied to their party.” In a world where trends and influences play a role in everyone’s lives, and as the media preaches that our government’s polarization stems from dislike, voters will unconsciously take on similar feelings and opinions. Carnegie Endowment for International Peace says that “e ven though Americans are not as ideologically polarized as they believe themselves to be, they are emotionally polarized (known as “affective polarization”). In other words, they do not like members of the other party. Americans harbor strong dislike for members of the other party (though they also dislike their own parties, as well). While social media is often blamed for this phenomenon, affective polarization started growing before the internet: its onset more closely correlates with the rise of cable news and radio talk shows.”

Though our state’s government has been able to remain focused and civil, the same cannot be said for government at the federal level. Through the media and misconceptions, federal polarization is a result of dislike, not disagreement.