Students have likely heard the appeal before that polarization is bad, but “we all basically want the same thing.” A quick review of research literature suggests the same. According to Ipsos, a global research company, about 70% of Americans say most Americans want the same things out of life. This appeal is often used in discussions about American politics to give the impression that all involved feel our political perils are merely transitory.
Unfortunately for the country, a deeper issue lies at the root of surface political disturbances.
According to Gallup in 2024, 80% of U.S. adults say Americans disagree about fundamental values. This leaves the thinking individual with a key question: how can Americans say they want the same things yet disagree about what things are most important? Perhaps many Americans do want similar things on a surface level, but aspiring to live comfortably and have a strong economy is hardly the foundation of a national identity.
It is difficult, if not impossible, to form a national identity without some shared sense of morality. Americans disagree on fundamental issues like LGBTQ+ rights and the place of religion in public life. On a divisive issue like abortion, the pro-life side views pro-choice advocates as supporting a legal form of murder, while the pro-choice side views pro-lifers as wanting to take away women’s basic human rights. These disagreements are not merely political but influence the identities of individuals. When someone disagrees with a viewpoint, it may feel frustrating, but when someone invalidates your identity, it feels like a personal attack.
However, what is perhaps more notable than differences in views of right and wrong is the growing share of the population that believes all morality is subjective. According to Pew research, a majority of U.S. adults say that right and wrong are situational. The nonpartisan Public Religion Research Institute explains that this notion is increasingly popular with younger generations, with 64% of Millennials viewing morality in this way compared to 56% of Baby Boomers. These philosophical viewpoints of Americans have real-world implications for American politics. A society without a clear view of what is right and what is wrong struggles to determine a shared sense of ethics. Without clearly defined and shared ethics, previously unethical behavior becomes morally grey. In a country with a reduced sense of objective morality, it ought not be surprising that a growing share of Americans perceive violence as the solution to political disagreements.
Many popular political commentators, both conservative and liberal, have suggested that a return to localism may abate many of these issues. While people may not agree across the country, it is more likely that they would agree within a small area, such as a county or city. This principle, commonly referred to as subsidiarity, has the potential to reduce partisan battles. However, it is unlikely to be beneficial in the long term, as it would allow polities to become more radical individually. America doesn’t just need a temporary solution; it needs a shared national identity. What other potential solutions are there?
Since the problem is a lack of shared philosophical or moral agreement, only a period of moral realignment could bring moral consensus to the nation. Additionally, it is unlikely that moral alignment with relativism will solve this problem, since relativism itself has an atomistic effect. As such, America needs some kind of philosophical or religious revival to regain shared values. The specifics of the values will depend on the particular ideology, philosophy, or religion that ends up captivating the national attention. Americans are increasingly saying they are open to religious beliefs, and many Christians seem to think a revival is already underway in Gen Z across college campuses.
Fortunately, a significant value realignment appears to have begun. Regardless, UT students ought not make the mistake of assuming all share the same values. Such an assumption hampers positive dialogue and is likely to increase division in the long term. Environments like college campuses have long shaped the culture of the rest of society. As one of the nation’s foremost universities, the University of Texas has the opportunity to begin the national conversion over shared values and a shared notion of right and wrong. Recent on-campus events, such as the book talk with Robert George and Cornel West hosted by the Civitas Institute, are a step in the right direction. However, in their current form, such events mainly reach a population of students already discussing values and truth.
Ultimately, creating enough moral consensus for a functional society cannot begin until that society recognizes it is not in agreement. Former Senator and GOP nominee John McCain once said, “Our shared values define us more than our differences. And acknowledging those shared values can see us through our challenges today if we have the wisdom to trust in them again.” What may have been true in 2008 does not hold true in 2025. The longer Americans pretend to desire the same things, the longer true value differences will increase division, heated rhetoric, and, worryingly, violence. The solution to disagreement begins with acknowledging its existence.
