The Toxic Emotions Underlying Our Political Divide

This is the first post in a series on toxic emotions in politics.

A major theme of this blog is the importance of emotions in understanding our political beliefs. Although we may want to believe otherwise, we are not liberal or conservative in our head, but in our gut.

When asked why we are liberal or conservative, we will give our reasons. We are likely to justify our opinions based on evidence and reflection, on what we have learned from personal experience. To some extent, the reasons we give for our political opinions must be real and sincere. Often, however, this cannot be the whole story.

A Supreme Court justice is not conservative because he is an “originalist” or a “strict constructionist.” He is an originalist because he is conservative. Antonin Scalia disputed this, even called it a slander, but his argument is unconvincing. Liberal justices are not liberal because they believe in a “living constitution.” They believe in a living constitution because they are liberal. For Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the starting point and core premise of her judicial philosophy was the awareness of injustice. For Scalia, the starting point was what he perceived as moral decadence in society and the need to defend traditional values. This is why Scalia and Ginsburg, friends for decades, continued to disagree.

In contemporary America, we are increasingly divided by feelings of resentment, humiliation, and fear. On the right, our current politics is dominated by grievances—that undeserving others are getting what we have worked hard for, that liberal values are destroying the moral foundation of society, and that children are being taught to dishonor and hate the country they should be proud of. On the extreme right, these grievances have become increasingly malignant, spreading for several decades, from the bottom up, as feelings of resentment, and from the top down, by demagogues and partisan media, now justifying efforts at censorship and threats of violence against those who disagree.

On the left, political attitudes are dominated by a different set of grievances—a feeling of injustice that, in many instances, has also become malignant—an arrogant and self-righteous demand, also justifying censorship (and self-censorship, through fear) and acts of "cancellation," jeopardizing the careers of decent people who may have chosen the wrong word or who simply disagree.

Extreme and dangerous political attitudes, however, most often originate with an understandable concern. If we can talk about these feelings at their source, as a response to real events, we have a chance to arrest this malignant process.

The Politics of Resentment and Humiliation

Historian Francis Fukuyama has presented a compelling analysis of the emotional forces influencing political history and our current moment. Fukuyama believes that to understand contemporary political events, we need a better theory of the human soul.

Drawing from Hegel’s philosophy of history, Fukuyama argues that politics is animated by more than economic self-interest (as assumed by many theories) but also by a basic human need he calls “an inner sense of dignity." He believes that the desire for dignity—experiences of recognition, honor, respect, and pride, both as individuals and as members of groups—is "a master concept" and the driving force of political events around the world. Fukuyama calls this the politics of resentment.

Philosopher Michael Sandel has presented a similar analysis to explain our current political polarization and discontent. Sandel, also following Hegel, agrees that we are motivated by a need for recognition—a feeling of appreciation and respect.

Sandel argues that political division in contemporary American society is based on a confluence of forces, partly economic, but more fundamentally psychological. In our increasingly meritocratic and unequal society, men without a college education have suffered more than a loss of job security and stagnant or declining wages; they have experienced a loss of "social esteem." In past generations, these workers were more widely respected for their contributions to society and the prosperity that many of us enjoy. Lack of respect, at least as much as economic grievances, is the source of their resentment. Financial security matters, but feelings of pride matter more. Sandel calls this the politics of humiliation.

Fukuyama and Sandel believe that a society that fails to offer feelings of dignity and pride to large numbers of people, a society in which many people have limited hope of achieving social esteem, will be a society that is deeply divided between "us" and "them," at risk for malignant demands for dignity and vulnerable to the appeal of demagogues.

The Politics of Fear

Philosopher Martha Nussbaum has presented a different understanding of the emotional causes of our current political polarization. Nussbaum believes we are increasingly divided by fear.

Nussbaum contrasts emotions that bring people together—love, compassion, and hope—and those that separate us from others—fear, anger, disgust, and envy. In Nussbaum’s analysis, fear is the most fundamental of these emotions. Anger, disgust, and envy are “children” of fear. These emotions and their expression in political attitudes (for example, racism, xenophobia, antisemitism, misogyny, homophobia, and fear of people with disabilities) are ultimately based on fear and draw their strength from fear.

Politics Essential Reads

How to Have Better Political Conversations

Maybe We Should Talk About Politics During Thanksgiving

Nussbaum calls fear a "tyrant." Fear weakens compassion and contracts our circle of care and concern. Fear increases tribalism, both in its positive forms—providing safety and strengthening cooperation within the tribe—and its destructive forms—exclusion, hatred, and dehumanization of others. Fear increases support for authoritarianism and erodes restraints on violence, cruelty, and revenge. Fear (my way of life is endangered) and resentment (“they” are getting what I deserve) are an especially toxic mix.

There are antidotes to these malignant political emotions. In my next post, I will discuss how we can mitigate the toxic emotions that now dominate American political life.