America's divisions explained

The nation's conflicts boil down to belonging versus threat

It has become almost cliché to say that America is deeply divided. Politicians repeat it, cable news thrives on it, and most people will nod along to the idea without hesitation. That part is easy. The harder part is answering why. What is the actual fault line that cuts the country into two almost perfectly opposed camps?

There are plenty of ideas, but most of them fall apart when you look closely.

Take race. It is undeniable that race shapes American life. It influences where people live, what opportunities they have, and a number of other daily factors. But race alone does not explain the fifty-fifty political split we see in national elections. Latino and Black voters have shown measurable shifts toward Republicans in recent cycles, while large numbers of white voters in major cities remain solidly Democratic. The racial picture simply does not line up neatly with the political one.

Another popular explanation is class. This one says the real divide is between the wealthy and the working class, or the top one percent and everyone else. At first glance it feels compelling. But if the country were truly divided along those lines, the numbers would look very different. The overwhelming majority of Americans are working or middle class, yet they are split right down the middle politically. The wealthy, although powerful, make up too small a fraction of the population to account for the deadlock we see every two or four years.

Religion gets mentioned often as well. White evangelical Christians vote overwhelmingly Republican, so it might seem like that is the core divide. But Catholics are split. Jewish and Muslim Americans lean Democratic. Many Christians are not aligned with the religious right. Religious identity does not fully map onto the broader political standoff either.

Some argue that the split is cultural, or an urban versus rural divide. There is some truth here. Cities and small towns often see the world very differently. But even this frame misses something important. If culture alone explained the split, the suburbs would not be the central battleground in every election. Yet that is exactly what they are, flipping back and forth depending on the cycle.

So if none of these explanations quite add up, what does?

Here is what I want to propose: The real divide is not primarily about race, class, religion, or geography. It is about belonging versus threat.

One side looks at the country and says: change is progress. Expanding the circle of who belongs makes us stronger. The other side looks at those same changes and says: this is an invasion, a loss, a threat to our way of life.

Seen through this lens, every major fight in American politics begins to make sense.

Immigration is a perfect example. On one side, newcomers are part of the American story. We all belong. On the other, immigrants are “invaders” who are dangerous, criminals, or out to replace the people who were here first.

Race fits the same pattern. One view says diversity strengthens democracy. The other casts diversity as synonymous with crime, decline, or societal collapse.

Consider abortion. For those who support abortion rights, the issue is about women fully belonging as equal citizens, trusted to make their own medical and moral decisions. For opponents, abortion represents a threat to the traditional family, to religious values, even to demographic survival.

Gender and sexuality line up in the same way. One perspective celebrates more people living openly as progress. The other frames LGBTQ rights as an attack on the family, on children, and on masculinity itself.

Even religion divides along these lines. Belonging means pluralism, the freedom to believe or not believe. Threat means Christianity must dominate or else it will be under siege.

Democracy itself is at stake. Belonging says that everyone gets a vote and even if your side loses, you still belong in the political community. Threat says that if the “wrong” people vote, then the system must be rigged and the rules must be broken.

The same is true for economics. Belonging says we are in this together and everyone deserves a share. Threat says “they” are taking what belongs to “us,” whether it is jobs, healthcare, or government assistance.

Guns are another example. For one side, regulation is about making public spaces safer so everyone can participate without fear. For the other, owning a gun is not just about sport but about survival in a hostile world where neither government nor community can be trusted.

Even climate change falls into the same frame. Belonging says we must protect the planet we all share. Threat says green policies will wipe out our way of life.

Once you see it, it is hard to unsee.

Every one of the big American arguments can be understood as belonging versus threat.

And that, I believe, is the true fracture line. Some see change as expanding the circle of who counts. Others see change as a danger to who they already are.

Yes, America is divided. But the divide is not what most people think. It is not simply race, class, religion, or geography. It is a much deeper question about whether you believe expansion of belonging is progress, or whether you believe that very same expansion is an existential threat.

That is the divide of divides.

Paid memberships make articles like this possible. Your support helps cover the time, research, and work that go into each piece. If you find value in what you’re reading, consider becoming a paid Substack subscriber—it keeps this work going.