Economic inequality and polarization
existing divides sharper. As in many primary and secondary sectors, many working-class communities — especially in small towns and rural areas — lost stable, well-paid work. Simultaneously, big cities with strong tech, finance, and professional sectors continued to grow as the government did not pull back on corporate welfare handouts. Well-connected businesses and highly educated workers in these urban areas thrived, and many leaned toward the Democratic Party. This split made it seem like ‘elites’ in cities were doing better while smaller communities were left behind. These unequal impacts fuelled anger and mistrust, which in turn heightened polarization. Donald Trump leveraged these grievances by blaming previous leaders, turning economic stress into a clear us-versus-them narrative that resonated in struggling regions. Influential, yet arguably radical, President Donald Trump in the 21st century has highlighted asymmetric polarization. In recent years, Republicans have moved further to the right than Democrats have moved to the left, widening the ideological gap (DeSilver, 2022). At the same time, the increasing influence of money in politics reinforced partisan loyalties and policy priorities. Wealthy individuals and corporations, through campaign donations and political action committees (PACs), fund candidates who support their economic interests. For example, defence contractor Lockheed Martin often backs legislators who favour higher military spending—policies that directly benefit their sector. In April 2022 alone, the company spent $256,000 across 147 donations to members of Congress and party PACs, including contributions to five members of the Senate Armed Services Committee, 27 members of the House Armed Services Committee, both of which oversee military spending, and two conservative Democratic Senators (Zhang, 2022). This kind of financial influence can exacerbate polarization, as elected officials prioritize donor demands over cross-party compromise, leaving voters more divided by class, geography and industry. The Gini Index, which measures income inequality, highlights the link between economic gaps and political polarization. Among high ‐ income countries, the United States ranks near the top for inequality: the top 1% controls 30.9% of national wealth, while the bottom 50% holds just 2.6% (Wikipedia, 2019). By contrast, Sweden’s Gini score of 27.6% (tradingeconomics) reflects much lower inequality and, correspondingly, lower political polarization. Sweden’s extensive social safety nets and redistributive taxes have helped preserve a broad middle class, reducing the sense of relative deprivation that fuels resentment and more extreme ideological positions. By preventing economic cleavages from dominating politics, Sweden also limits the ability of radical or populist figures to mobilize grievances. Moreover, Sweden often has coalition or minority governments that rely on simple ‘confidence and supply’ deals—other parties agree to support the budget and keep the government in place in return for policy trade ‐ offs. Because the main parties are not extremely far apart, these agreements are easier to make, so politics stays more cooperative and less polarized. Therefore, in Sweden’s more equal economy, a broad middle class acts as a stabilizing buffer, helping to keep politics calmer and less divided—something the U.S. struggles to achieve amid higher inequality.
Consequently, widening income gaps erode social harmony and political stability. As the middle class prospers less, groups retreat into communities, leading to stronger class identities. This sharpens the sense of winners and losers, fuels angry politics, and creates space for democratic backsliding by
60
Made with FlippingBook - PDF hosting