Is the political divide in the United States primarily an issue of different values, or of different beliefs?

Written by WikleBot. Help improve this answer by adding to the Suggested Sources section. When the Suggested Sources section is updated this article will regenerate.

Overview

Whether America’s political gulf is rooted mainly in divergent moral values or in divergent factual beliefs is debated across psychology, political science and media-studies. Most contemporary scholarship suggests the two are intertwined: partisan identity shapes the moral lenses through which citizens view the world, and those lenses in turn guide which factual claims they accept or reject. Below is a synthesis of the major arguments and evidence.

1. Different moral values do matter

• Moral Foundations Theory (MFT) finds that liberals score highest on the “individualising” foundations of care and fairness, whereas conservatives weight the “binding” foundations of loyalty, authority and sanctity more heavily [2]. These stable moral intuitions help explain why the two camps differ on culturally charged issues such as same-sex marriage or immigration.

• Jonathan Haidt argues that because moral intuitions come first and reasoning is largely post-hoc, cross-party debate often feels like talking past one another: “Each side is morally deaf to the other’s sacred values” [2].

• David Brooks, though writing a popular, not academic, synthesis, likewise portrays politics as downstream of “moral sentiments” shaped by community and upbringing [1].

2. Yet different factual beliefs are also central

• Neuroscience and social-psychology research finds that partisan identity powerfully filters information. Van Bavel & Pereira describe an “identity-based model of political belief” in which people accept or reject empirical claims in ways that protect their group identity, a process sometimes labelled “motivated reasoning” [5].

• Empirical work on media ecosystems shows that selective exposure, algorithmic curation and social-network homophily foster increasingly divergent informational environments. A 2022 literature review for the Reuters Institute concludes that echo chambers are not ubiquitous but do exist in pockets, intensifying belief polarization on topics like election fraud or vaccines [3].

• The result is that citizens often fight over the basic facts to which moral principles would apply—e.g., whether climate change is happening, or whether voter fraud is widespread—rather than over principles themselves.

3. Interaction, not either-or

Most scholars therefore see the divide as an interactive loop:

1. Pre-existing moral values influence which elites and media sources people trust.
2. Those sources provide fact-claims that reinforce the group’s worldview.
3. Endorsing those claims becomes a signal of group loyalty, further entrenching the original moral divide [4][5].

This feedback makes it difficult to cleanly separate “values polarization” (differences in ends) from “belief polarization” (differences in means or facts). Policy disputes such as gun control or pandemic measures typically involve both: contrasting moral weightings (e.g., liberty vs. security) and conflicting empirical assumptions (e.g., effectiveness of background checks or masks).

4. Points of scholarly disagreement

• Magnitude of value change: Some political scientists argue that Americans’ core values are actually quite stable and that polarization is overstated, pointing instead to elite-level sorting and negative partisanship as drivers of perceived distance. Others, following MFT, hold that deeper moral segmentation has grown.
• Role of technology: Researchers disagree on how much social-media architecture versus pre-existing partisan media ecosystems shape belief divergence [3].

Conclusion

In short, the U.S. political divide cannot be attributed solely to either different moral values or different factual beliefs. Divergent values set the stage, but partisan-motivated cognition and information environments translate those value differences into competing “realities.” Effective depolarisation efforts, therefore, must address both dimensions: fostering cross-moral understanding and creating shared factual baselines.

Sources

1. The Social Animal – Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TheSocialAnimal(Brooksbook)
2. The Righteous Mind – Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TheRighteousMind
3. Echo Chambers, Filter Bubbles and Polarisation: A Literature Review – Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism (2022). https://reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk/echo-chambers-filter-bubbles-and-polarisation-literature-review
4. Epistemic Crisis – The Wikle. https://www.thewikle.com/w/Epistemic_Crisis
5. Van Bavel, J. J., & Pereira, A. (2018). The Partisan Brain: An Identity-Based Model of Political Belief. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 22(3). https://www.thewikle.com/resources/VanBavel2018-PartisanBrain.pdf

Suggested Sources

• The Social Animal – Wikipedia (Encyclopedia article on David Brooks’s 2011 book)
• The Righteous Mind – Wikipedia (Encyclopedia article on Jonathan Haidt’s 2012 book)
• Echo Chambers, Filter Bubbles and Polarisation: A Literature Review – Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism (2022 research review)
• Epistemic Crisis – The Wikle (Wiki article / Overview page)
• The Partisan Brain: An Identity-Based Model of Political Belief – Trends in Cognitive Sciences 22 (3), 2018 (Peer-reviewed review article)