NOV 7, 2024 | FEATURES | By Emmanuel Mercedes
During Block 2, a group of students organized a trip to Michigan that allowed them to witness the complexities of political campaigning and the role of political identity firsthand. As part of the trip, the group worked on the campaign trail for Kamala Harris, navigating conversations with voters in a politically divided swing state.
While they came away with valuable lessons on civic engagement and a sense of accomplished civil duty, the trip also revealed how tightly held political beliefs can affect social dynamics and create a culture where ideological conformity sometimes overshadows open discourse.
In reflecting on the experience, one participant I spoke with described how political identity shaped the interactions within many of the social groups they interacted with, revealing the intensity of the current political climate.
“I think it’s just kind of easier to not challenge a lot of things, like what everyone else is saying,” the student shared. “It’s easier just to go with the group and get along, especially when you’re in a place where everyone generally shares the same views.”
This reluctance to challenge the status quo is an example of groupthink, a concept often studied in social psychology to describe how a desire for harmony or conformity in a group can lead to irrational or dysfunctional decision-making outcomes. In the Michigan campaign, this seemed to manifest in the lack of space for more nuanced discussions, with students avoiding conversations that might create division. While campaigning on college campuses, the CC students on the campaign trip faced a lot of misinformation and regurgitation of popular narratives, being evident that these were expressed out of a desire for deterring meaningful discussion.
For students at Colorado College, where the political climate leans heavily liberal, this experience echoes a broader phenomenon that shapes our community. In an environment where many share similar views, it can feel easier — or even necessary — for people who hold different views to sidestep challenging conversations to avoid conflict or marginalization. Another student noted that while they agreed with the campaign’s purpose, the “us versus them” mentality felt pervasive. “It kind of becomes part of your social identity,” Sophie Barber ‘27 said.
When dissenting opinions are unwelcome, even indirectly, it can make some feel like outsiders within their own community. The polarization evident on the campaign trip echoes this reality on campus, where differences in political views can subtly dictate who feels they “belong” and who does not. It’s not just about being liberal or conservative; it’s about the social identity these labels confer, dictating who we see as “us” and who we see as “them.”
Another concerning aspect is that this culture of political identity and polarization isn’t unique to the Michigan campaign trip or our campus; it’s a symptom of a broader national issue. According to the Vanderbilt Unity Index (VUI), Political polarization in the United States has intensified in recent years, illustrating increased percentages of people identifying as either extremely liberal or extremely conservative. Our experiences reflect the same trends we see in the media, where debate is often reduced to “us vs. them” rhetoric. When political beliefs become markers of group identity, we lose the ability to engage with one another as individuals with unique perspectives. Instead, we reduce ourselves to labels: liberal, conservative or moderate — and in doing so, we overlook the nuances of each person’s stance.
Barber reflected on how quickly conversations would be rejected due to partisanship. “In Grand Rapids, no one wanted to talk about politics,” Barber said. “Everyone opened the door and they’d be like, ‘Sorry I don’t want to talk about politics’… they would look me up and down and they would see my [Blundstones] and they would know I’m a liberal.”
The sense of “right” and “wrong” teams not only narrows the scope for meaningful engagement but also restricts students’ intellectual growth and open-mindedness. Instead of challenging each other’s views, students are subtly encouraged to adopt uniform perspectives, creating echo chambers that limit critical thinking and empathy. At a place like CC, the polarization between “us” and “them” risks simplifying complex political and social issues and eroding the diversity of thought that a college community should foster.
It’s important to remember that this isn’t an inherent flaw in political participation or activism. The problem arises when we allow our ideological beliefs to overshadow our capacity for empathy and critical thinking. Research done by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace shows that, “…most partisans hold major misbeliefs about the other party’s preferences that lead them to think there is far less shared policy belief.” Believe it or not, we are less polarized than we think but because we construct our identities around partisanship, we create barriers separating the “us” and “them.” In this process polarization becomes a self-fulling prophecy, as demonstrated by the aforementioned VUI.
In order to discontinue the manufacture of political self-identities–and forcing these identities onto disagreeing parties, I believe it’s crucial for students at CC to actively create spaces for diverse political discussions. To encourage respectful debate that challenges the groupthink culture. This means encouraging students to disagree in ways that respect individual perspectives and foster intellectual curiosity. As students, we must strive to break out of the confines of ideological purity and work toward a more inclusive, thoughtful and open-minded campus culture. Only then can we foster the kind of dialogue that allows us to truly understand each other — not just the politics we represent, but the humanity we all share.