How Political Polarization Is Killing Grand Strategy

[rangerrebew]

How Political Polarization Is Killing Grand Strategy
July 20, 2025
By: Andrew Latham
 
A United States that abruptly changes its strategy every four years is not one other countries will trust or respect.
One of the most common political phrases in modern America is that the country has never been more divided. Whether it appears in the news, throughout government, or even at family gatherings, the term “political polarization” has become a defining feature of the national conversation. Yet, this polarization reflects more than just dividing domestic partisan disagreement. It represents dramatic national shifts across American culture, ideals, and perspectives, and this division does not stay confined within the national borders. It ripples outward, actively shaping how the United States interacts with the world. As politics at home splinter, American grand strategy is also beginning to crack.

The United States, since its inception, has always been a more politically polarized country than most. Its two-party system has stood in some form or other since the late eighteenth century, and most internal questions, from slavery to tariffs, have always been home to fierce ideological battlegrounds. Yet, when it comes to grand strategy abroad, the United States has often retained a greater bipartisan consensus on foreign policy and national interests abroad.

Whether it be Westward expansion in the nineteenth century, isolationism in the early 20th century, or internationalist interventionism after the Second World War, American grand strategy has historically reflected a relatively unified vision of the nation’s role in the world. Today, however, that consensus is fracturing. Political polarization has begun to directly erode the foundations of bipartisan American grand strategy, making it more volatile, inconsistent, and reactive. As administrations alternate between competing ideological extremes, long-term planning gives way to short-term political maneuvering, weakening America’s credibility and coherence abroad.

https://nationalinterest.org/feature/how-political-polarization-is-killing-grand-strategy

[rangerrebew]

One of the most common political phrases in modern America is that the country has never been more divided. 

Have these people never heard of the Civil War?

[Smokin Joe]

Have these people never heard of the Civil War?

There were four candidates involved in the 1860 election. Lincoln and Breckinridge were only two.

It is disingenuous to try to hammer history through the dies of false dichotomy. It is more complicated than that. 



Virginia's vacillation on the issue of secession doomed Maryland to years of Union occupation, and ultimately, because Maryland was not a 'state in rebellion', but under Yankee rule, unless manumitted by their owners, the slaves there were not freed by law until 1865, an additional two years of servitude.

For those who don't understand Crimea, Russia and elections, look at suspended Habeas Corpus, people rounded up and imprisoned on suspicion of being a Southern sympathizer, Elections held under the thumb of your invaders, and finally, a well-culled husk of a legislature (or the remnant) voting to stay part of the Union. [invade, replace, elect, direct]

But history is seldom taught, because you never know when someone might want you to repeat it.

At one time, we were thirteen sovereign States, 13 countries, states or commonwealths, with our own governments, currencies, flags, constitutions, legislatures, who agreed to work together for our mutual benefit, the advantage of a common currency and measurement standards, and for our mutual defense, with a small and limited government to oversee that cooperation, to settle disputes, to coin our money and provide for the common defense (mostly Navy).
When that was not working, and the issues of division (of which there were many) so conflicted that no solution seemed mutually acceptable, inevitably, several of those sovereign States sought to dissolve the former voluntary compact and to forge a new one that better suited their aims.

Have we returned to such a state of affairs? If so, it is at the behest of our Media, the divisive elements in our Government, many of whom subscribe to beliefs, if not the influence of outside interests, those not our own.

Here we go again, and, yes, it's complicated. Only this time the interests which seek to influence us would control us if they could, from the Communists to the Mullahs to Europe (still dependent on us after a century of self-destruction). Much preparatory groundwork and division has been sown under the guise of free speech and religion, and those who would own us spy daily on our strengths, exacerbate our weaknesses, foment division, and suborn invasion, not for the purpose of National unity, but to divide.

Dig deep enough and you will find foreign influences in the former conflict, jealous of our resources and space, who sought to control directly or otherwise the wealth and people of this continent.

plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose