The Culture War, Partisan Media, and the Deepening Divide in America

For decades, the United States has struggled with political division, but the rise of partisan media and the culture war has pushed the country toward a level of polarization that threatens democracy itself. Issues that were once debated in the realm of policy have become matters of identity, where Americans are increasingly divided along ideological lines, shaping not just how they vote but how they view civil rights, corporate power, and the legitimacy of elections.

The Rise of Partisan Media and the Culture War

By the early 2000s, news consumption had become increasingly partisan. Fox News, positioning itself as the alternative to so-called liberal media, experienced explosive growth in conservative viewership, while CNN and MSNBC catered to more left-leaning audiences. This sorting of media preferences wasn’t just about where people got their news—it was about the narratives being shaped. Rather than fostering debate and consensus, partisan media worked to inflame division, amplifying cultural grievances that became the foundation of the modern culture war.

The 2004 election was a key turning point. The political battle over the Iraq War, same-sex marriage bans, and the infamous “swift-boating” of John Kerry reinforced the power of wedge issues. These cultural flashpoints were not just tools for political campaigns but became entrenched in partisan identity. This period cemented the strategy of using social issues as a way to mobilize voters—not through broad-based policy discussions but through fear, outrage, and tribalism.

The Impact on Civil Rights

One of the most damaging effects of polarization has been on civil rights. The culture war has turned fundamental rights into partisan battlegrounds. Issues such as LGBTQ+ rights, voting rights, and racial justice have become deeply politicized, with conservative media framing them as threats to traditional values and liberal media positioning them as fights for progress and equity.

For example, the push for same-sex marriage in the 2000s was met with aggressive political opposition, leading to ballot initiatives banning it in multiple states. The struggle for voting rights has been framed by conservatives as a battle against election fraud (despite no evidence of widespread fraud) while liberals see it as a fight against voter suppression. As media echo chambers reinforce these narratives, bipartisan solutions become nearly impossible, leaving civil rights vulnerable to the whims of whoever holds power.

Corporate Power and the Culture War

As partisan media has fueled division, corporations have learned to exploit the culture war for profit. Some companies have aligned themselves with progressive values, engaging in corporate activism to appeal to younger, liberal consumers. Others have leaned into conservative backlash, adopting anti-woke branding. But in both cases, the real winner is corporate power itself.

By steering public discourse toward cultural flashpoints, corporations avoid scrutiny of economic issues like wealth inequality, labor rights, and monopolistic practices. Instead of uniting around economic justice, Americans are caught in endless cultural battles, distracted from the policies that consolidate wealth and power at the top.

This is evident in how corporations selectively engage with political issues. Companies will issue statements about Pride Month while donating to politicians who oppose LGBTQ+ rights. They will decry racial injustice while exploiting workers of color. By keeping Americans locked in cultural combat, corporate America ensures that the status quo remains intact.

Elections and the Legitimacy Crisis

The entrenchment of partisan media and the culture war has had an even more dire consequence: the erosion of trust in elections. Conservative media, particularly after the 2020 election, has pushed the idea that any electoral loss is due to fraud. The “Stop the Steal” movement and the January 6th insurrection were direct results of years of right-wing media priming its audience to believe that democracy itself was rigged against them.

This delegitimization of elections is perhaps the most dangerous effect of modern polarization. When a significant portion of the population refuses to accept the results of an election, democracy ceases to function. On the left, there is growing distrust in the Supreme Court and institutions that conservatives have stacked with ideological judges. Faith in American democracy is declining across the board, and partisan media ensures that this distrust remains a permanent feature of political life.

Breaking the Cycle

The current trajectory is unsustainable. As partisan media and the culture war continue to push Americans into opposing camps, the ability to govern effectively is collapsing. The solution requires both media reform and a shift in political strategy.

1. Media Literacy and Diversification – Americans need to recognize the role that partisan media plays in shaping their worldview. Consuming a diverse range of news sources can help break the cycle of ideological isolation.

2. Economic Solidarity Over Cultural Division – Instead of allowing corporations and politicians to use cultural issues to divide Americans, there must be a renewed focus on shared economic interests. Issues like healthcare, wages, and corporate accountability impact all Americans, regardless of party affiliation.

3. Restoring Faith in Democracy – Efforts must be made to ensure elections are free, fair, and trusted. This includes combating voter suppression, securing election infrastructure, and holding media outlets accountable for spreading disinformation.

Polarization and division are not inevitable. They are the result of deliberate strategies that benefit those in power at the expense of the public. By understanding how partisan media and the culture war are used to manipulate and divide, Americans can begin to bridge the divide and work toward a future where democracy—and not division—prevails.

The Iraq War, Polarization, and the Erosion of Civil Rights in America

The 2003 invasion of Iraq created cracks in how American’s feel about their country—not just in terms of foreign policy, but also in the deepening of domestic polarization. The war, justified by the Bush administration on the grounds that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction (which were never found), ignited a fierce national debate that still echoes today.

In many ways, the Iraq War exacerbated the fractures in American society, particularly in how it shaped attitudes toward civil rights and elections. The effects of that era—distrust in government, the erosion of civil liberties, and increasing partisan division—have played a significant role in the growing political tribalism we see today.

Differing Views on the Iraq War

At the onset of the war, the country split into two camps: those who believed it was a necessary response to terrorism and those who saw it as an unjustified war of choice. Massive anti-war protests broke out across the U.S. and the world, yet a parallel surge of nationalism led to a “support the troops” movement that discouraged dissent.

This divide wasn’t just about foreign policy; it became a litmus test for American identity. Questioning the war was often equated with being unpatriotic, while supporting it became synonymous with defending freedom. This dynamic created a social pressure that stifled debate, making it easier for the government to pass laws and policies that chipped away at civil liberties.

The Patriot Act and the Rise of Government Surveillance

The post-9/11 era, intensified by the Iraq War, saw an unprecedented expansion of government surveillance. The USA PATRIOT Act, passed in 2001 but reinforced during the Iraq War years, allowed broad government access to private communications, financial records, and personal data—often with minimal oversight.

While framed as a tool to combat terrorism, these policies disproportionately affected Muslim Americans, activists, and journalists. The surveillance state that expanded under Bush set a precedent that both Democratic and Republican administrations would later use, solidifying a bipartisan erosion of civil liberties in the name of security.

Torture, Civil Liberties, and a Crisis of Credibility

The Iraq War also brought human rights abuses to the forefront, particularly with revelations of torture at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay. The Bush administration’s use of “enhanced interrogation techniques” sparked international condemnation and further divided Americans at home. For many, it was a wake-up call about the unchecked power of the executive branch and the fragility of civil rights when national security is invoked.

The government’s justifications for war—centered on false intelligence—deepened public skepticism toward official narratives. This erosion of trust in institutions laid the groundwork for future political movements that capitalized on widespread distrust, from the Tea Party to Trump’s rise.

Elections in an Era of Mistrust and Division

The political polarization exacerbated by the Iraq War has had lasting effects on elections. The 2004 election, held in the shadow of the war, saw some of the most aggressive voter suppression efforts in modern history, particularly in Ohio, where long wait times, purged voter rolls, and machine malfunctions disproportionately affected Democratic voters.

Fast-forward to today, and the war’s legacy can still be felt in how elections are contested. The “us vs. them” mentality that solidified during the Iraq War years has only grown stronger, making compromise nearly impossible. This polarization has contributed to:

• Voter Suppression Laws: Post-9/11 fears of terrorism were used to justify voter ID laws that disproportionately disenfranchise marginalized communities.

• Misinformation and Distrust: The government’s misleading claims about Iraq set a precedent for political leaders manipulating facts, fueling the rise of conspiracy theories that now dominate election discourse.

• Hyper-Partisan Elections: The belief that the opposing party is not just wrong but a threat to democracy itself has made elections more about defeating the enemy than governance.

A War That Never Really Ended

Although the Iraq War officially ended in 2011, its consequences still shape American society. The erosion of civil liberties, the deepening of partisan distrust, and the normalization of misinformation have all contributed to today’s fractured political climate.

The question now is whether we can learn from this history. Can we rebuild trust in institutions? Can we reclaim civil rights lost in the name of national security? Can we move beyond division and find common ground?

If the Iraq War taught us anything, it’s that truth matters, civil liberties are fragile, and unchecked power can have long-term consequences. The fight for a more just and united America depends on remembering these lessons—and acting on them.

The Post-9/11 Erosion of Civil Liberties and the Deepening Divide in America

The attacks on September 11, 2001, left an indelible mark on the United States. In the immediate aftermath, the nation came together in mourning, shock, and a collective determination to prevent such a tragedy from happening again. But the policies that followed—especially the USA PATRIOT Act—would sow the seeds of long-term civil rights erosion and political division that still plague the country today.

The USA PATRIOT Act: Security at the Cost of Liberty

Just 45 days after the attacks, with little debate, Congress overwhelmingly passed the USA PATRIOT Act—an acronym for “Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism.” The bill drastically expanded government surveillance capabilities, allowing warrantless wiretaps, indefinite detention, and the mass collection of personal data. At the time, few questioned the trade-off between security and civil liberties. But in hindsight, the law became one of the most significant accelerators of government overreach and public mistrust.

The Patriot Act legitimized domestic spying on American citizens, particularly targeting Muslim communities, activists, and dissenters. The government justified these actions under the banner of national security, but they fostered an atmosphere of fear, racial profiling, and division. As civil liberties groups like the ACLU warned, the act weakened constitutional protections, particularly the Fourth Amendment’s guard against unreasonable searches and seizures. It also paved the way for later policies, such as the NSA’s mass surveillance programs exposed by Edward Snowden.

The Chilling Effect on Free Speech and Political Participation

When the government normalizes surveillance and indefinite detention without due process, it inevitably discourages dissent. In the years following 9/11, activists, journalists, and ordinary citizens became more hesitant to speak out against government policies, fearing they could be labeled as unpatriotic—or worse, as security threats. This chilling effect has had long-term consequences on democratic engagement.

For example, post-9/11 policies disproportionately targeted Muslim Americans and immigrants, fostering a sense of alienation that made it harder for these communities to participate in elections and civic life. The fear of being monitored or wrongly accused of connections to terrorism kept many from engaging in political discourse. The “war on terror” rhetoric also gave rise to xenophobic political messaging, which right-wing movements later weaponized to push anti-immigrant and Islamophobic policies.

How Post-9/11 Policies Shaped Modern Political Divisions

The surveillance state and the erosion of civil liberties didn’t just affect those directly targeted—they contributed to a broader erosion of trust in the government. Over time, Americans on both the left and right grew increasingly skeptical of federal authority, but for different reasons.

• Progressives saw post-9/11 policies as an attack on civil rights, particularly against marginalized communities. They pushed back against mass surveillance, indefinite detention, and racial profiling.

• Conservatives, while initially supportive of expanded security powers, later turned against government overreach when they saw these same surveillance tools used against them—such as the FBI’s monitoring of far-right groups after the January 6th insurrection.

This bipartisan mistrust of government power should have united Americans in demanding stronger civil rights protections. Instead, political leaders exploited these divisions. The right, for instance, redirected anger about government overreach toward issues like election integrity and pandemic policies, fueling conspiracy theories and deepening polarization.

Election Laws, Fear, and the Patriot Act’s Legacy

One of the most underappreciated consequences of post-9/11 policies is their influence on modern election laws. The Patriot Act normalized a security-first mindset that later justified restrictive voting laws. Under the guise of preventing terrorism and fraud, lawmakers introduced measures that disproportionately impacted marginalized voters, such as strict voter ID laws, purges of voter rolls, and restrictions on mail-in voting.

The same fear-driven tactics used to justify the Patriot Act were later repurposed to push election laws that suppressed turnout, particularly among Black, Latino, and immigrant communities. Today, the rhetoric around election security echoes the post-9/11 fearmongering, with claims of “foreign interference” and “internal threats” serving as justifications for undermining democracy.

Reclaiming Civil Liberties and Restoring Trust

The erosion of civil liberties after 9/11 was not an inevitable consequence of tragedy—it was a political choice. And just as those policies were implemented through fear and manipulation, they can be reversed through collective action.

To bridge the divisions caused by these policies, Americans across the political spectrum must come together to demand stronger privacy protections, an end to mass surveillance, and fair election laws that promote participation rather than restrict it.

The Patriot Act may have been born out of crisis, but nearly a quarter-century later, we have an opportunity to learn from its failures. The question is: will we let fear continue to divide us, or will we reclaim the rights that were sacrificed in its name?

The Birth of “Red” and “Blue” America

On November 7, 2000, Americans went to the polls in what would become one of the most disputed elections in U.S. history. The focus narrowed to Florida, where the vote margin between Bush and Gore was extraordinarily slim, triggering an automatic machine recount as mandated by state law. The initial recount reduced Bush’s lead to just 317 votes. Subsequently, Gore requested manual recounts in four counties, citing concerns over ballot issues such as the infamous “hanging chads” on punch-card ballots. Legal battles ensued over the recount process, deadlines, and the inclusion of certain ballots. The Florida Supreme Court ordered a statewide manual recount of undervotes, but this decision was halted by the U.S. Supreme Court on December 9. In a 5–4 decision on December 12, the Court ruled in Bush v. Gore to stop the recounts, effectively awarding Florida’s 25 electoral votes—and the presidency—to Bush. This ruling remains a subject of debate and has had lasting implications on public trust in the electoral process.

---

Prior to the 2000 election, there was no consistent color scheme to represent the two major political parties on electoral maps; media outlets varied in their use of colors, sometimes even alternating them between election cycles. For instance, during the 1976 election, NBC used blue to denote states won by Republican Gerald Ford and red for those won by Democrat Jimmy Carter. This lack of standardization persisted for decades. 

The protracted uncertainty of the 2000 election, with its extended recounts and legal battles, kept electoral maps in the public eye for weeks. During this period, major news networks adopted a uniform color scheme: red for Republican victories and blue for Democratic ones. This visual representation resonated with the public, leading to the widespread adoption of the terms “red states” and “blue states” to describe Republican-leaning and Democratic-leaning states, respectively. The fixation on these colors became so ingrained that they are now standard in political discourse and media representation.

---

The 2000 election’s legacy extends beyond the establishment of a color-coded political map. The contentious nature of the election and the Supreme Court’s intervention heightened partisan divisions and led to increased scrutiny of the electoral process. The terms “red state” and “blue state” have come to symbolize the deep-seated ideological divides within the country, often oversimplifying the complex political landscapes of individual states. This binary classification can obscure the presence of diverse political views within states and contribute to a perception of a more polarized nation.

Furthermore, the standardization of red and blue as representations of the Republican and Democratic parties, respectively, is somewhat counterintuitive when compared to international norms. Globally, red is typically associated with left-leaning or socialist parties, while blue is linked to conservative parties. The American reversal of this color symbolism underscores the unique evolution of the country’s political and media practices. 

---

The 2000 presidential election was a turning point that not only tested the resilience of the American electoral system but also transformed the visual language of political affiliation in the United States. The adoption of red and blue to represent the Republican and Democratic parties, respectively, has become a lasting symbol of the nation’s political identity, influencing how elections are reported and how Americans perceive political divisions. As the nation continues to grapple with issues of partisanship and electoral integrity, the legacy of the 2000 election serves as a reminder of the profound impact that electoral processes and media representations can have on democratic society.

Exploring Division: Who Profits and How We Rebuild

Did you know that prior to the year 2000 there were no red states or blue states. The color changed each election cycle?

What did we lose by that simple little change? Are we different people? Do we have different goals? Did half of us become the enemy of the other half?

No. We are all Americans.

We all want the freedom to succeed. The freedom to raise our children.  The chance at a decent life. To give our children a better life than we had. To put our mark on the world.

Somewhere along the way, corporate media, some politicians… They decided that we are easier to control when we’re divided. They’ve manufactured rage, differences, and other trivial matters that keep us apart.

But we’re better when we work together. We can do great things as a nation when we use our differences together in common purpose.

It’s time to look past the lies, look past the outrage, and kick those out that seek to destroy this great experiment where we choose who represent us, and do what is best for the whole country.

---

Over the next few posts, with some help, I’m going to look back at the past 25 years to understand the ripples that brought us to where we are today.