Is the Other Party “the Enemy”?
Republicans and Democrats alike tend to overstate the others’ extremism.
IN 1519, HERNÁN CORTÉS AND A FORCE of a few hundred Spanish soldiers landed in Mexico. Two and a half years later, they defeated the mighty Aztec empire and its hundreds of thousands of warriors. Or that’s the way the history used to be taught. In fact, Cortés was able to exploit pandemic disease and internal divisions among the Aztecs to undermine what had seemed to be an impregnable power.
Abraham Lincoln, who knew a thing or two about internal divisions, advised the young men of Springfield, Illinois that they must attend to preserving the patrimony of the Founders:
At what point then is the approach of danger to be expected? I answer, if it ever reach us, it must spring up amongst us. It cannot come from abroad. If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen, we must live through all time, or die by suicide.
Just after the assassination of Charlie Kirk, a New York Times/Siena poll found that Americans believe polarization is the second most serious challenge facing the nation. (The economy came in first.) As recently as one year ago, fewer than 1 percent of registered voters cited polarization as a national problem; this year, 13 percent said it was the most important problem facing the nation, more serious than immigration (7 percent), inflation (5 percent), crime (4 percent), or “freedoms” (3 percent). Additionally, strong majorities of Democrats, Republicans, and independents agree that “America’s political system . . . is too politically divided to solve its problems.” As the New York Times noted, even in the midst of battles over vaccination, masks, and shutdowns five years ago, a majority of voters still believed we could overcome our divisions to work together. That is now a distinctly minority view—at least according to this poll—held by only 33 percent.
Not only do Americans believe we’re bitterly polarized, they worry that we’re condoning political violence, and that we cannot agree on basic facts. When Republicans were asked to name the nation’s biggest problem, their first choice was the economy but their second was “Democrats.” When Democrats were asked the same question, they put the economy second and named “Trump/Republicans” first.
Nations are not eternal, and domestic divisions often lead to destruction—especially when exploited by foreign enemies. So it’s important to pay attention to these red flags, but it’s equally important not to misinterpret them.
When we consider how much of our discourse is mediated through partisan sources and the fact that the governing political party is dominated by incendiary extremists, it’s surprising we aren’t even more polarized. A reservoir of moderation persists in the nation. It’s shrinking, but still present.
Research by More in Common has found that time spent online is highly correlated with support for political violence.1 A 2024 survey conducted by the group found that 14 percent of American adults agreed with the statement “I feel that violence is sometimes needed to advance political causes in the US today.” That number jumped to 22 percent among those who spent five or more hours on social media daily and dropped to 6 percent among those who devoted a half hour or less to social media each day.
Surveys showing support for political violence are disturbing, particularly in the wake of assassination attempts on Trump, arson at the home of Governor Josh Shapiro, the attack on Paul Pelosi, the assassinations of Melissa Hortman and Charlie Kirk, and other politically motivated attacks. But those surveys can also be misleading. As More in Common explains, vaguely worded questions—that, say, fail to define violence or to distinguish between attacks on people and attacks on property—can lead to inflated responses. When Americans are asked, for example, whether it is justified to commit violence against supporters of the other party’s presidential candidate, nearly 100 percent say no.
And yet, Americans have a distorted impression of how their political opposites feel about violence. The same More in Common survey from 2024 (conducted after the assassination attempt on Trump) found that Democrats and independents vastly overestimated how Republicans would react. Democrats guessed that 47 percent of Republicans would agree with the statement “Violence against Democrats is now justified.” The actual number of Republicans who agreed with the statement was 13 percent. Independents estimated that 38 percent of Republicans would endorse the statement.
Misperceptions abound on other topics as well. A June 2025 survey found that 85 percent of Republicans and 89 percent of Democrats believe freedom of speech to be “unconditional.” Yet Republicans estimated that only 52 percent of Democrats believed that and Democrats guessed that only 57 percent of Republicans would say so. In the NYT/Siena survey, 82 percent of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents reported that they considered Democrats to be “fellow Americans with whom they disagree politically” as opposed to 14 percent who thought of Democrats as “the enemy.” Among Democrats and like-minded independents, 84 percent consider Republicans to be fellow Americans with whom they disagree as opposed to 10 percent who label Republicans as the enemy.
Similarly, 80 percent of Democrats and 85 percent of Republicans say it’s important to respect those with whom you disagree. Democrats think only 39 percent of Republicans assent to this and Republicans estimate that only 36 percent of Democrats would say the same.
Vast swaths of Americans of all political persuasions would like to see a more united country, yet on this question as well, the perception gap is large. When Republicans were asked in January 2025 what qualities Democrats would want to see in the country ten years into the future, they guessed “green” or “tolerant.” Republicans estimated that only about 14 percent of Democrats would say “united,” but in fact, 44 percent of Democrats chose united, more than any other quality. And while 47 percent of Republicans offered that they wanted to see a united country, Democrats supposed that this would be true of only 13 percent of the GOP.
There is no sugarcoating the trend toward authoritarianism among the very online and a growing share of Republicans. While only 1 percent of Democrats say they endorse non-democratic government in the United States, fully 10 percent of Republicans now say as much. On the other hand, Democrats might be surprised to learn that 13 percent of Republicans believe that Donald Trump’s presidency poses a greater threat to democracy than the courts or bureaucracy. Of course, if that 13 percent includes the 10 percent who like autocracy, it’s a less encouraging finding.
Surveys can’t capture everything. And even in a nation where large majorities disfavor violence or extremism, we can’t kid ourselves. A small number of dedicated revolutionaries have overcome widespread indifference before. Still, the research on perception gaps is a useful corrective to pervasive beliefs about our divisions. The gaps are wide but perhaps not as deep as we fear, and there remain opportunities for leaders to appeal to unity and mutual respect.
Full disclosure: I serve on the global board of More in Common.




There can be no mutual respect without shared facts and a shared belief in bodily autonomy. These are the minimum standards to share space.
I think there is a lot of wisdom here about how people are misperceiving each other. However, I think it's important to point out that sometimes polling and how we measure things about individuals political sentiments can lead to us misperceiving OURSELVES as well. Mona cites a A June 2025 survey found that 85 percent of Republicans and 89 percent of Democrats believe freedom of speech to be “unconditional.” This is heartening and I don't want to poo poo it too much but to be frank I am EXTREMELY unconvinced that this is a meaningful representation of what people actually think about the complexities of when and how speech should be "free" because unconditional isn't defined. In reality I expect we'd find people support all kinds of restrictions on speech being imposed by different actors both private and public depending on the exact speech and circumstances if we asked about specific scenarios.