That there’s intense political polarization in this country is apparent; the explanation for that polarization isn’t as clear.

It could be that the two major parties, in response to the consensus of their members, have come to champion political doctrines that are so radically different that compromise is virtually impossible. Such an explanation would at least be consistent with how we like to think democracy works: Citizens belong to a political party because they regard that party’s policies as most suited to advance their own interests and the interests of the nation. Party polarization therefore reflects a genuine public division on what government policies should be.

But commentators tell us that that is not what lies behind today’s polarization. The Republican Party, we’re told, has become untethered to political rationality. It is now nothing more than a “cult of personality” (Donald Trump’s personality, of course) and has largely abandoned policy-oriented politics. We also hear that “identity politics” has taken over: That it’s the Republican Party’s knee-jerk hostility to the Democratic Party that has rendered cross-party cooperation impossible. For Republicans, it’s said, winning elections and stymieing Democrats’ endeavors is now an end in itself.

The “personality cult” explanation is plausible. There’s evidence that a good many Trump supporters have a cult-like devotion to him — a blind, unwavering belief in the truth of whatever he says, including his assertion that he actually won the last election.

For Republicans who have adopted this cult-follower attitude, an unthinking, intense partisanship has replaced a thoughtful commitment to policies.

It’s worth noting, however, that the Trump “personality” is not without policy implications. In any number of public remarks and actions, Trump has made it clear that he believes that white people are the “real” Americans and that conservative Christianity is the country’s “real” faith. It is this barely concealed racism and overt support for evangelical Christianity that seem to be the Trump traits that have produced a cult following. Admittedly, neither racism nor religious bigotry qualify as policies, in the proper sense of the word, but Trump’s immigration policy obviously flowed from his racism, and his opposition to abortion reflected his commitment to conservative Christian doctrine.

And then there’s “identity politics.” This phrase is often used to refer to political activity by citizens of some specific identity, such as Christians, or African Americans, or the disabled. In the present case, however, it refers to those members of a political party for whom party membership is such an important part of their self-image — their identity — that their commitment to the party has little to do with its policies.

The “identity politics” analysis goes something like this: We all have multiple identities; we’re black or brown or white, we have this or that ethnic heritage, faith and level of education, we belong to these clubs, live in this kind of community and so forth. Political party membership is simply another identity that we adopt.

Studies of group dynamics reveal that the strength of our sense of belonging to a group — the degree to which that membership is an important identity for us — is heavily dependent upon how many of our other identities are shared with the members of that group. Which is simply to say that if the other group members are like us in significant ways, we are more likely to feel that our membership is vital to who we are.

In the case of the Republican Party, what has happened since Trump became president is that the party has experienced a substantial homogenization. Trump Republicans are overwhelmingly white, rural, socially conservative, evangelical Christian and working class. For the typical party member, therefore, there are multiple identity overlaps within the party group and consequently a very strong sense of belonging. Members feel solidarity with one another and a strong commitment to the group’s welfare.

The consequences of having such a robust group identity are well known to social scientists. There is an inevitable tendency for group members to form biased opinions of other, similar groups. A sense of competition develops; emotions intensify. The group begins to think of itself as a team. If there is actual competition between groups (as with political parties), the attitudes of in-group members toward out-group members may become quite hostile. Winning becomes more and more the focus of group activity.

A good case can be made that that is what has happened in this country. For the average Republican, the prime concern of the party is its rivalry with Democrats. And Democrats are not just ideological opponents, they are the hated enemy, who will do anything to win. They must be defeated, no matter what it takes.

Identity politics theory says that Republican policies have become of negligible interest to average Republicans. They may talk about policies, but policies are not really what is at stake. What’s at stake is their self-esteem, their identities. That’s what the Democrats threaten; that’s why the Republican team must win.

There’s little doubt that Trump encouraged this sort of transformation of his party. He grew up seeing life as a contest; the challenge was to always be a winner, never a loser. His first campaign platform was little more than that: America has been losing, I’ll make it a winner again. As president, he portrayed the political realm as an us-versus-them struggle between good and evil. Democrats were the implacable, devious and dedicated foe, whose ultimate aim was to subjugate the populace and turn the country into a socialist state. And he demanded unquestioning loyalty — to himself, and to the party.

The identity politics analysis has merit. Political policies may well have become unimportant for the average Republican. We should keep in mind, however, that the party itself actually cares deeply about policies. Those who effectively control the Republican Party — the business elites — know perfectly well what policies serve their interests. Those policies, which devastated the country during the Trump administration, will certainly return if the Republicans regain control in 2022 or 2024.

Leonard Hitchcock of Pocatello is an alumnus of the University of Iowa and did graduate work at Claremont Graduate University and the University of California, San Diego. He taught philosophy in California and Arizona for 15 years. In 1985, after earning a library degree, he was hired by Idaho State University. He retired from ISU’s Oboler Library in 2006.