Even the conservative justices of the Supreme Court are divided over the state of American politics

Polarization is each essential to and a threat to a functioning democracy.

Too little disagreement between residents and politicians is unlikely to steer to productive political debate that leads to higher policies and laws. Too much disunity – especially when hostile and isolated groups come together in camps – can result in violence and destroy democracy.

To use a quote from one other time and context, polarization is “like the bubble in a spirit level.” If the bubble drifts too far to at least one side, something is improper.

On June 3, 2024, conservative Supreme Court justices will Samuel Alito and John Roberts in conversation Documentary filmmaker and liberal activist Lauren Windsor, who secretly recorded them, expressed very different views on where the polarization bubble sits in America today.

Although Windsor does a lot of the talking in her conversation with Alito, the justice agrees along with her description of polarization as a win-lose phenomenon. Alito says polarization is “very dangerous” because “there are differences of opinion on fundamental issues where there really is no compromise.”

Alito's conservative views should not surprising, but his openness about polarization is notable. There is not any talk of judges like referees calling balls and strikesas Chief Justice John Roberts put it in his Senate confirmation hearing in 2005.

Instead, Alito appears to be a justice who’s free to precise his views on the nation's ideological divide and who, in echoing Windsor's words, appears willing to make use of his position to “restore our country to a state of piety.”

Roberts takes a distinct stance on polarization in these recordings. The Chief Justice offers a more optimistic view of today's politics by pointing to other periods of major conflict in U.S. history, including the Civil War, the New Deal and the Vietnam War. He asks Windsor for examples of a “non-tumultuous time.” For him, the present state of affairs is “nothing new.”

The two justices' differing views could also be reflected each of their respective understandings of the Supreme Court's role in American life and within the resulting decisions by which they played a key role.

Anxious or optimistic

Of course, the conservative Alito is just not the just one to explain the polarization in such disturbing terms. Many left agree with him. They fear for the long run of American democracy, especially if Donald Trump wins the presidency again in November 2024.

For Alito, “one side or the other will win.” The probability of compromise is unlikely and, he says, perhaps undesirable. Here, too, many on the left agree.

In Roberts' more positive response to the filmmaker, he disagrees along with her statement that “polarization is so extreme that it may be irreparable.” For him, “extreme polarization is just like the Civil War… [and] during Vietnam [when] People were killed.”

Is the Vietnam War era an appropriate comparison to today?

Certainly, in some areas there is bigger polarization today than within the late Nineteen Sixties and early Seventies. For example, consider Group vote in Congress.

In the late Nineteen Sixties and early Seventies, it was not unusual for members of each parties to hitch forces to pass necessary laws. Clean Air And Clean Water works are only two examples. When President Richard Nixon vetoed In the latter case, in 1972, Congress overwhelmingly overrode Nixon's veto just hours later, with bipartisan support just weeks before an election that Nixon would win by a landslide.

But I don't think Roberts was focused on how easy it’s to pass recent laws. When he uses the word “killed” within the above quote in reference to the Vietnam era, political violence appears to be at the middle of his thoughts.

And here Roberts is undoubtedly right.

Assassinations, police violence

The Nineteen Sixties and Seventies were marked by political violence. The most blatant manifestations were political assassinations. Leaders akin to President John F. KennedyBlack Nationalist Malcolm XCivil rights activist Martin Luther King Jr. and Senator and presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy – to call just a number of – were all murdered within the prime of their lives.

John F. Kennedy and Robert F. Kennedy were 46 and 42 years old respectively. King and Malcolm X were just 39. In 1972 there was an assassination attempt ended George Wallace's presidential campaignthe 52-year-old governor of Alabama who supports racial segregation.

There was also political violence on the streets. Mass arrests and police brutality defined the scenes from Chicago in the course of the Democratic Party Convention there in 1968. But that was only a one-time event.

In her 2022 book “America in flames”, historian Elizabeth Hinton defines what was called “urban riots” as “political rebellions”. She details that “between May 1968 and December 1972, 1,949 individual uprisings took place in approximately 960 segregated black communities across the United States. … During those four years, nearly 40,000 people were arrested, more than 10,000 were injured, and at least 220 people were killed.”

In his 2016 book “Days of Wrath,” journalist Bryan Burrough examines the widespread domestic bombings of the Seventies. While the fatalities were few, he writes, “during an 18-month period between 1971 and 1972, the FBI reported more than 2,500 bombings on American soil, nearly five a day.”

A rough but enduring democracy

Although politics within the United States today is characterised by deep polarization and bitter division, it is just not characterised by widespread and sustained political violence.

One event stands out as a counterexample. The attack on the US Capitol on January 6, 2021 was a An unprecedented attack on the country’s democracyNever before had supporters of the defeated candidate threatened to overturn the election result by violently storming the Capitol to stop the confirmation of the election winner.

But while the events of January 6, 2021 shook the core of US democracy, the members of this mob didn’t escape Prosecution and punishment.. And after all, Trump was impeached for his efforts the 2020 election.

In the jiffy of the recorded conversation, Roberts looked as if it would intend to make clear to his listener that America has experienced difficult times before. America's democracy has been tested by division and discord, but has ultimately emerged stronger.

Roberts says we must always expect this now too.

The openness of democracy, as American history has shown again and again, often results in chaotic politics. Roberts' view of the state of America today is definitely more sanguine than Alito's.

But as a political scientist who historical evaluation in his workI consider Roberts's comparison of current U.S. politics to the politics of the Nineteen Sixties and Seventies is apt. At a time when so many have expressed deep concern concerning the threat of polarization, this comparison is a vital reminder of each the tough nature and the enduring power of American democracy.