According to a survey conducted by the Associated Press and the Norc Center for Public Affairs Research, voters for both parties are more divided about whether they trust or distrust science establishments.

The AP report is coming as academics acknowledge that the United States is becoming politically divided due to the “demographic shift”, which has been caused by the influx of global migrants into an otherwise stable country.
According to the AP’s 26 January announcement:

48% of Americans have high levels of confidence in science. There is now a gap of 30 points between Democrats and Republicans in confidence, up from 9 points in 2018. In 2021, 64% say they have great confidence in the scientific community. Only 34% of Republicans agree.

According to the AP/NORC chart, Republicans had greater faith in science in 2006 than Democrats.

Carnegie Endowment for International Peace released a January 18 report that stated the United States was a “perniciously divided” democracy. The report stated that there are no peer analogues to the United States’ current political divisions. It also acknowledged that the rise in identity politics and the increasing immigration and diversity has fueled the polarization.

There are a few things that make the United States vulnerable to polarization, and particularly resistant to efforts to decrease it. One of these features is the persistence of identity politics within a racially- and ethnically diverse democracy… The United States may be the only country to experience a demographic shift that threatens the white population, which has historically been the dominant group in all areas of power. This allows political leaders to exploit the insecurity surrounding this loss.

Thomas Edsall, a columnist for the New York Times and a liberal columnist, highlighted the deepening political divide.

Edsall, as many establishment commentators, cannot mention immigration and the imposed variety as the reason. Instead, he blamed the polarization for downstream factors that are caused by immigration. Edsall suggested, for example, that the solution to polarization is to cover up the growing civic and economic diversity by providing taxpayer subsidies.

Two related studies, “Inequality, identity and partisanship: How redistribution can stem the tide of mass polarization” by Alexander J. Stewart, Joshua B. Plotkin, and McCarty, and “Polarization Under Rising Inequality and Economics Decline” by Stewart, McCarty, and Joanna Bryson, argue that aggressive redistribution policies to reduce inequality must be implemented before polarization becomes more entrenched. There is a fear that the United States will become more polarized because of the current level of polarization.

Edsall acknowledges, however, that money won’t work if there is too much polarization: “A deeply divided electorate is unlikely to support redistribution which would benefit their adversaries as much as themselves.”

Edsall concludes that the inability to recognize the significance of migration has left him with a pessimistic conclusion. “The electorate is moving further and farther apart into two mutually hateful camps… Looking at the current political landscape, it appears there are no major or effective movements against polarization.”

This pathetic claim ignores the polarizing nature of the government’s economic policy of extractive migration. There is ample evidence that civic solidarity will return once migration is reduced.

Many polls show that Americans want an immigration policy that helps them, not foreigners or corporations.

According to polls, there is widespread opposition to the idea of labor migration in order for American workers to be able access the jobs they want. This opposition is growing and is anti-establishment. It is multiracial, transsex, nonracist, non-racist. It recognizes the solidarity Americans owe each other.

Edsall has the good sense to acknowledge that current polarization is also caused by contempt among elite Americans. He quotes one researcher as saying that people with higher cognitive abilities are more prejudiced against conservative and traditional groups… and that people with lower cognitive ability are more prejudiced against liberal and unconventional groups.

Many progressives hate ordinary Americans and want to lower their political standing, civic authority, economic power, and social status. Sherrilyn Ifill (president of the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund) suggested that ordinary Americans can be convinced to take part in another genocide against Jews.

The New York Times also insists that Americans are wrongly led to believe that society should create civic rules that reflect the fact that women and men, boys and girls, are biologically compatible. The newspaper instead insists that Americans must believe sexual identity is determined not by biology but “gender identity.”

Many progressives view mainstream and popular support for curbs to migration as being similar to unforgiveable racism. Heidi Beirich said that curbing immigration is a white nationalist argument that America should only be for white people and everyone else is somehow inferior and doesn’t belong. She named her activist group The Global Project Against Hate and Extremism. “They’re absolutely both racist and eugenicist,” said Hassan Ahmad, an immigrant lawyer, during their December conversation.

A Pew Research Center report in November 2021 described the “woke” progressives’ growing hostility.

A majority of Progressive Left (86%) believe that illegal immigrants generally make their communities better. They are also more supportive of legal immigration to the U.S. than any other political type groups. The Progressive Left is especially likely to support greater acceptance of transgender people in the U.S. 88% of them, with 75% saying this has been very beneficial for the country.

Polls have shown that white liberals are adopting more progressive positions on cultural issues since 2012. White Democrats, and in particular white liberals, are more likely to support liberal immigration policies, embrace diversity, and uphold affirmative actions than they were in decades past.

Zach Goldberg is a researcher at the Center for the Study of Partisanship and Ideology. He uses large national surveys to show how progressives have grown hostile towards conservative ideas and people like them. These results can be viewed on his Twitter account. Take this example:

Goldberg described in 2019 the progressives’ cultural warfare to seize power over Americans, “The woke elite act as white saviors who must guide the rest of America, including the interests of the racial minority they claim to represent, towards a vision for justice that the less enlightened would not choose for their own.”