In 2025, your politics aren’t just your opinion, they’re your identity. When Brandon Wu showed up to school wearing a red MAGA hat, the reaction wasn’t just disagreement, it was an onslaught. 

“They circled me in our lunch area and started throwing their food. [The student] basically went up to me and just started saying, ‘I want to debate, I want to debate,’” Wu said.

This confrontation quickly escalated, with the situation intensifying throughout the day.

“They quite literally ganged up on him. They circled him, kept on harassing him and pestering him for an entire day in the parking lot,” Samuel Low, Wu’s friend and fellow senior, said.

Whether we admit it or not, political beliefs have become a marker of identity — and a reason to exclude or confront others. This kind of social judgment links directly to the broader trend of political polarization, the movement of political views and actions away from the center and toward more extreme views and policies. 

According to a research study from the National Bureau of Economic Research, while political polarization is growing in other countries worldwide, it is happening much faster and more dramatically in the United States.

Polarization has only intensified with Generation Z, reshaping both our politics and social lives. According to a report by Pew Research Center, the number of people with political views in the “center” has decreased from 49% in 1994 to just 39% in 2014, and continues to decline.

As the harassment continued, Wu found himself repeatedly drawn into debates that seemed to have no end.

“They just wanted to debate unprovoked, throwing out topics and unrelated issues like school shootings. Every single time after I would say something, he would just go in as though he only wanted to prove I was wrong,” Wu said.

The students repeatedly verbally attacked Wu, allowing their emotions to take over their rational thought. In truth, they were all high school students going to the same school in the same grade, but the small difference in their political ideology created a gap larger than ever.

“The situation had clearly spiraled beyond a simple debate,” Wu said. “I honestly thought that something like this gonna happen, but my gut was telling me hopefully no one would do it.”

Wu’s experience isn’t isolated. Across the country, schools have seen a rise in political conflicts, especially in the wake of the 2024 election cycle. A national survey by the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) and UC Riverside researchers showed that over two-thirds of high school principals reported substantial political conflicts within their communities. 

Furthermore, a UCLA study estimated that districts nationwide spent $3.2 billion in the 2023–2024 school year addressing “culturally divisive conflict.” This included expenses for increased security, additional staff time, and efforts to manage staff turnover.

“It’s absolutely ridiculous. We should welcome political discussions, but definitely shouldn’t be so aggressive about it,” Low said.

While debate might be healthy, as well as differing perspectives, political polarization is a different discussion.

“Political polarization increases hostility and leads to an inability to acknowledge any other side. It fuels an ‘us vs them’ problem,” said Carlmont sophomore Brandon Shen.

This “us vs. them” mindset isn’t new. According to the Center for Legislative Archives, it has roots in the early 19th century, where political divisions between the Democratic-Republicans arose around differing visions for America’s future. These divisions led to the rise of the two-party system as we know it today.

Today, the United States is dominated by two political parties: Republicans and Democrats. As Pew Research Center data shows, they have drifted further apart since the 1970s, with Democrats becoming more liberal and Republicans more conservative. This divide is no longer confined to political discussions, rather, it’s reflected everywhere from dinner tables to TikTok For You Pages.

Political diversity is when multiple perspectives are represented within an environment, as opposed to a clear-cut liberal or conservative side. With the absence of choice and diversity, some believe that choosing one political figure over another doesn’t inherently reflect on a person’s character. 

“If you thought Hitler was right, then you would probably be considered a mentally ill person. But if you chose Trump over Harris, or vice versa, I don’t think that necessarily makes you a bad person,” said Carlmont sophomore Gabriel Osorio. 

Despite this view, Wu observed a sharp polarization at Carlmont.

“I think a lot of people at Carlmont are very polarized against conservatism because I don’t think they understand what it means,” Wu said.

Many believe the broader political divide is becoming more pronounced with the rise of controversial figures.

“Political divisions are getting worse, especially with more controversial figures like Biden and Trump. Even though these politicians represent certain views, their actions don’t always align with what people agree with,” said Dakota Chang, a Carlmont sophomore.

Generally, political figures are expected to reflect the values of their constituents, yet an increasingly polarized landscape leads to a disconnect. Figures like Trump, whose rhetoric, policies, and the Jan. 6 capitol riot in 2021 widened partisan divides, have alienated moderate voters. 

Additionally, a Pew Research Center study found that regardless of political engagement, most Americans feel that elected officials do not care about their opinions. Specifically, 84% of highly engaged individuals and 87% of less engaged individuals share this sentiment. 

“Diversity is always good, but realistically, I don’t think it’s going to happen that much right now,” Wu said.

At first glance, politics might seem like a debate over laws, policies, and platforms. But in everyday conversations, it rarely feels that simple.

“Nowadays, a lot of human rights issues have become politicized. People feel like when someone votes a certain way, they’re directly infringing on someone else’s rights or beliefs, causing a lot of judgment. But I don’t think politics was ever meant to work that way,” said Sweekriti Ratman, a Carlmont junior and the president of the Political Science Club at Carlmont.

That sense of infringement has raised the emotional stakes of political discussions. What might once have been considered a policy disagreement may spark personal tension, especially around hot-button topics like immigration, foreign policy, and abortion.

“Political ideologies are fundamentally rooted in values of what’s right, fair, and just,” Shen said. “It’s normally an extension of what people morally believe is correct.” 

This connection between politics and personal morality creates complications. As individuals’ beliefs become more tied to their identity, political discourse becomes more charged. Critiquing a policy can feel like questioning someone’s character. The result is a political climate where opposing views are often treated as threats, not just alternatives.

“Your political views aren’t simply an ideology. They lead to laws and policies that affect everyone, and people’s decisions lead to different outcomes,” said Carlmont freshman Lana Fitterer. 

In a democracy, where outcomes are determined by collective decisions, the pressure to be “right” only intensifies. But when people view opposing opinions as moral threats, one question becomes harder to ignore: Can we disagree without turning on each other?

According to Vox, Americans are more likely to hate someone based on politics rather than their racial identity.

In other words: ideology has replaced identity as the line people won’t cross. Political polarization has reached such extremes that it often supersedes other social divisions, such as race. This phenomenon suggests that political identity has become a primary lens through which individuals view and judge one another.

This shift in societal dynamics can be observed locally as well. At Carlmont, the Political Science Club tries to foster open conversation and civic engagement, but even there, students tread carefully. 

“There were mixed opinions when we talked about the propositions in the upcoming election cycle. But the propositions themselves didn’t really cause much political division. There are a lot of sides to consider, and they don’t always lean toward one party or another,” Ratman said. “Voting, though — that’s a different topic and much more polarizing.” 

This division in voting behavior underscores a broader issue highlighted by political scientists, such as those from the Georgetown Institute for the Study of Markets and Ethics. According to their research, even well-intentioned efforts like boosting voter turnout don’t necessarily reduce division. In fact, they can backfire, drawing previously disengaged voters into the fray with more extreme, polarized views.

At the individual level, that tension plays out in friendships, classrooms, and daily interactions.

“I don’t think judging someone based on their political beliefs is fair. Everyone naturally has different opinions about all kinds of things, so why should political views be treated differently?” Chang said.

In today’s polarized climate, political beliefs often play a significant role in people forming connections and making decisions about their relationships. For many, judging others is not necessarily about criticizing their personal qualities but determining whether they share compatible values and beliefs.

“Judging, to me, means deciding if you want to be around someone or have a role in their life based on what they believe,” said Karena Ling, a Carlmont sophomore.

She explained that while people may try to understand different perspectives, personal beliefs often shape who they choose to be close to. 

“I think people should try to hear the other side and try to understand different views. But it’s always a factor when making friends. People tend to be closer to others who think similarly,” Ling said.

However, not everyone feels comfortable bringing political conversations into public spaces. For some, keeping political talk behind closed doors is how they dodge drama and preserve friendships.

“I don’t think it’s right to bring up politics in public. It should only be discussed in private,” Chang said.

Limiting political discussions to more personal settings helps avoid conflict and maintain a sense of mutual respect among friends and peers.

Despite this, Chang also sees the potential for unity in the face of differing opinions.

“I think there’s still hope for unity. Unity doesn’t mean we all have to agree — it just means accepting that everyone has different views,” Chang said.