By: Maeve Sterling

The room hums with quiet tension as students scroll through their phones, each screen flashing headlines, opinions and breaking news alerts that rarely agree. At one table, a debate sparks over immigration policy; across the room, another conversation stalls before it can begin, silenced by the weight of assumed political labels.

Generation Z entered political life in one of the most divided periods in modern American history. Unlike previous generations, who may remember moments of bipartisan cooperation, ours has been defined by visible conflict and growing distrust between parties.

This polarized environment is the only political world Gen Z has ever known. As they grow to become a powerful part of the electorate, their views, values and responses to partisanship are growing to determine the future shape of American democracy. 

Political polarization refers to the widening gap between opposing political parties in terms of attitudes, values, and behaviors. In the United States, it exists in two forms: ideological polarization, a division in people’s views on policy, and affective polarization, where partisans view political opponents with mistrust and disdain.

According to nonpartisan researchers at the Pew Research Center, Americans’ views of opposing parties and those who disagree with them have become increasingly unfavorable over recent decades. Members of both parties seem to see political opponents as threats to the nation’s overall well-being, something that was once unusual in American politics.

Understanding the evolution of partisanship and its intensification is deeply essential to how Gen Z interacts with modern politics. Roots of polarization stretch back decades, to the founding of political parties as they know them, and the institutions from which they were built.

Think tanks – research organizations that study public policy and influence public debates – have played a significant role in the transformation from moderation in politics to extreme polarization. In The Thinkers: The Rise of Partisan Think Tanks and the Polarization of American Politics, published in 2024, political scientist E.J. Fagan traces how conservative and progressive think tanks have shaped the policy agendas and rhetoric of modern political parties.

The Heritage Foundation, one of the earliest conservative think tanks was founded in 1973 and has shaped conservative positions on tax policy, social issues and federal spending. Brookings Institution, another think tank, leans centrist and conducts research across economics, governance and domestic policy.

Fagan’s research shows that the growth of partisan think tanks closely mirrors the rise in political polarization, both in Congress and in public debates, suggesting that these institutions may also be responsible for contouring partisan conflict.

“The information polarization enabled by partisan think tanks has pushed both parties toward the extremes but in an asymmetric formation,” Fagan wrote.

Fagan explains the development of the Republican Party’s conservative ideology as “an explicit critique of the nonpartisan knowledge regime.” It came as a response to ideas that were considered inherently liberal rather than nonpartisan by founding members and required conservative counterpoints.

“When Republicans created their knowledge regime in the 1970s, they built it with the express purpose of providing an alternative to the expertise that conservative elites had come to regard as liberal,” Fagan wrote.

Later, this strategy shifted from studying policy and providing knowledge to actively attempting to reshape party agendas.

Fagan argues that this shift marked a structural change in how ideas moved through Washington. Instead of research leading to neutral policy discussion and gradual reform, ideological vision and policy packaging led to partisan mobilization and legislative pressure.

“Partisan think tanks are likely an important part of a larger story of how elites in both parties, first the Republican Party and later the Democratic Party, began to diverge,” Fagan wrote.

Organizations like Turning Point USA and Young Democrats serve a similar purpose on college campuses, giving young adults the opportunity to have open discussions about their political beliefs with their peers.

As these organizations multiplied on both conservative and progressive sides, they defined distinct ideological environments. The coherence strengthened the parties internally, but also widened the distance between them.

One of the biggest insights from Fagan’s research is his view that polarization wasn’t an accidental byproduct of social change, but instead, was the outcome of strategic institutional development.

Partisan think tanks compete for donor funding, influence within party coalitions and media attention, which rewards the sharper contrast between parties.

“Increased media citation of partisan think tanks may indicate that more conservative or liberal views are becoming mainstream and may thus be an indicator of their success rather than a cause of it,” Fagan wrote.

For Gen Z, this institutional backstory matters because it explains why polarization feels entrenched into what they know of politics.

Fagan explained that think tanks are not the lone cause of polarization. Economic inequality, civil rights, media fragmentation and demographic shifts all play major roles. However, his research highlights how organized infrastructure amplifies and stabilizes ideological conflict and how polarization is fueled by the institutions, such as think tanks and media networks, that produce and distribute political ideas.

Our generation is facing a uniquely polarized political era due to contentious elections and a growing distrust of institutions, amplified by the digital age. The 2016 presidential election is one of the earliest examples of Gen Z’s glimpse into a tumultuous political environment. With this, Gen Z is more diverse— racially, ethnically and in terms of religious identity—than previous generations.

According to data from the Public Religion Research Institute (PRRI), Gen Z is the only generation in which less than half of its members are white and more people identify as LGBTQ+ than any other generation.

Additionally, Gen Z tends to lean towards progressive positions on those connected issues,  meaning that they are more likely to focus on civil rights, diversity and social justice issues and are more likely to vote for political figures with opposing ideas than past generations.Nationally, 31% of Gen Z identify as Democrats, 30% as independents and 23% as Republicans, but 16% of our generation’s adults answer with “other” or “don’t know,” according to PRRI.

Even as demographic data suggests Gen Z leans more toward progressive policies, public opinion research reveals deep skepticism toward political institutions among younger Americans.

In the 2025 Harvard Youth Poll, only about 19% of Gen Z respondents said they trust the federal government to “do the right thing most or all of the time.” Confidence in core institutions like Congress, the presidency and the judiciary scored even lower.

Despite comments that this might be a case of youthful cynicism, it reflects our generation’s real frustrations with what many perceive as a political system that is unresponsive to their needs.

Other recent polling shows a majority of young Americans believe the country is heading in the wrong direction and express negative opinions of both major political parties.

“The two party system will be the death of America if both parties continue to stagnate,” said Jason Marecki, a student at the university. Reflecting disappointment in the country’s current diversity in political representation.

Phoebe Collins describes themselves as a leftist, someone who seeks radical social and economic change in the direction of greater equality.

Collins said their political identity has not shifted since arriving at college. While their ideological position remained stable, she acknowledged becoming more intentional about staying informed, calling it a “conscious effort.”

Research shows Gen Z‘s political engagement and turnout in recent elections reached historically high levels. Collins believes their generation’s increased engagement is partly age-related, but it is also a reflection of changing politics.

The focus on immigration and social politics, Collins said, seems to dominate Gen Z’s conversations due to their increasing relevance and media coverage in the United States. They argue that both major parties increasingly rely on identity-driven appeals. Collins’ perspective shows that the shift away from economic policy may be intentional.  

“With the rise in both sides using identity politics as a way to garner support, attention often shifts away from economic concerns,” Collins said.

Instead of addressing economic inequality, Collins believes political actors highlight cultural flashpoints. 

Their critique reflects a long-running debate among scholars about whether polarization is driven primarily by ideology, identity or institutional incentives. Partisan affiliation increasingly overlaps with race and cultural identity, reinforcing affective polarization.

Despite identifying strongly with the left, Collins believes today’s polarization is less about policy substance and more about partisan branding. Gen Z’s diversity is fundamentally different from older generations, and more likely to guide who and what they choose to put our trust in.

To Collins, the two-party system forces complex political beliefs into binary categories. Forcing the polarization gap bigger. Gen Z’s comparatively high rates of independence could signal a realignment away from the traditional system. If younger voters continue to resist strict partisan labels, they may return to placing a greater focus on issue–based politics.

“I think the distinction between Democrats and Republicans has widened,” Collins said, “despite that, I feel like the policies themselves have shrunk.”

Labels of Democrat or Republican shape perceptions of peers before conversations even begin, and it can create an in-group, out-group dynamic. Collins admitted that they are not immune to that instinct.

“Polarization has created almost like a tribalist thought of ‘I’m in this camp, you’re in that camp,’” Collins said, “Somebody has a different political opinion than me and I just have to completely shut it down.”

College is one of the first environments where political identity becomes socially visible. Students study alongside peers with different identities. This diversity has the potential to expand perspectives and create a healthy environment full of conversation, but it can also amplify harmful differences.

Research from the American National Election Studies shows that party identification increasingly overlaps with other aspects of identity. On college campuses, where those aspects are actively explored and affirmed, your political stance can become directly connected to your self-definition.

Collins believes that when political identity becomes inseparable from personal identity, the disagreement feels existential rather than intellectual. Debates about immigration, healthcare or education policy no longer feel like a difference in priorities; deeper, like a rejection of someone’s lived experience.

The intensity of politics is both energizing and exhausting to them, which reflects a general attitude within Gen Z. Some people feel spurred to activism and political involvement to create change, but others are experiencing fatigue.

“Politics is exhausting in times of change,” Collins said. “But we need to stay focused.”

Despite brief moments of pessimism, Collins does not see disengagement as an option. For Gen Z, this polarization is something they are facing head-on; it is the driving factor of our entire generational attitude towards politics.

The ambivalence of existing within political spaces may be the defining emotion of our political experience thus far.

Collins reflects broader generational frustrations, but other students express a more radical critique of partisanship, one that involved rejecting the system all together.

Joshua Lerman, another student, described his political identity as “very anarchist,” and said that his views have remained consistently leftist, shaped by his upbringing and the increased exposure to political discourse in recent years.

“It’s kind of impossible to not be politically aware now,” Lerman said. “Everything is so constant, you’re always seeing it.”

Rather than focusing on the divisions drawn by party lines, Lerman said he views the current system as fundamentally flawed.

“I think the current system we have is completely broken, trying to fix it just by voting or working within it feels like playing inside rules that were never made to benefit everyone,” he said.

This perspective is another side of Gen Z’s disillusioned sentiment, an awareness about the effects of institutional structures as a whole. Trying to discuss these perspectives is increasingly difficult in political conversations, Lerman said.

He described avoiding political discussions with friends who hold opposing views, even when those differences are significant. Despite having such passionate ideals and beliefs, it doesn’t seem tangible to make space for them in the everyday world.

That breakdown in communication has had tangible effects on the personal relationships of students. This reluctance to engage highlights a paradox within Gen Z’s political identity: despite being described as outspoken and engaged, many still avoid direct confrontation in their personal lives.

At the same time, partisanship still continues to shape everyday interactions in subtle ways. Lerman noted that they tend to “test the waters” in conversations with new people by introducing his opinions cautiously, gauging their reaction before continuing further.

“It still affects who I surround myself with,” Lerman said. “It’s exhausting to constantly argue with people who see the world completely differently.”

Many Gen Z find it difficult to try to build open and welcoming relationships because of the stark difference in opinions. Lerman said he feels like there is a line between surrounding yourself with people like you, but also avoiding being stuck in an echo chamber of opinions.

“It’s really easy to end up only seeing one side,” he said. “But it’s just as easy to fall into an extreme isolationist direction without realizing it.”

Still, Lerman said he feels like Gen Z shows less restraint and more willingness to have conversations openly.

“People our age aren’t as afraid to call things out,” Lerman said. “Even if there are consequences, it feels important to say something.”

Gen Z is a generation deeply engaged in politics, yet increasingly skeptical that there are ways to produce meaningful change.

If polarization was built through institutions, media incentives and partisan infrastructure, it can also be reshaped through civic norms, electoral reforms and cross-partisan dialogue. Universities, workplaces and online communities will all serve as testing grounds for what that reshaping looks like. The future of American democracy will not be determined solely by whether Gen Z leans left or right – it will be shaped by how they respond to the partisan environment they inherited.