Anger, Political Loyalty, and Democracy

[Quintessence]

An interesting analysis about the role anger has to play in political loyalty and its adverse effects on democracy:

"Anger-filled political rhetoric is nothing new. From Andrew Johnson and Richard Nixon to Newt Gingrich, politicians have long known that angry voters are loyal voters. People will support their party’s candidates locally and nationally so long as they remain sufficiently outraged at the opposing party.
...

Angry people tend to negatively judge the source of their anger. So when politicians continually label each other with crude epithets and infuriate people by taking – or not taking – certain actions, the public responds by lowering their evaluations of Washington. Eventually, they question what government is even capable of.
...

Arguably more harmful for democracy, anger also makes people see supporters of the opposing political party as a threat to the country’s well-being."
From - Angry Americans: How political rage helps campaigns but hurts democracy
​

Is there anything we can do to stop casting our political opponents as "the enemy" and quench the flames of anger? Can we encourage solutions to challenges that transcend political identities for the common good of us all? If your own political will is motivated by anger, how can you channel that into something more productive and less demonizing of others?

 

[exchemist]

An interesting analysis about the role anger has to play in political loyalty and its adverse effects on democracy:

"Anger-filled political rhetoric is nothing new. From Andrew Johnson and Richard Nixon to Newt Gingrich, politicians have long known that angry voters are loyal voters. People will support their party’s candidates locally and nationally so long as they remain sufficiently outraged at the opposing party.
...

Angry people tend to negatively judge the source of their anger. So when politicians continually label each other with crude epithets and infuriate people by taking – or not taking – certain actions, the public responds by lowering their evaluations of Washington. Eventually, they question what government is even capable of.
...

Arguably more harmful for democracy, anger also makes people see supporters of the opposing political party as a threat to the country’s well-being."
From - Angry Americans: How political rage helps campaigns but hurts democracy
​

Is there anything we can do to stop casting our political opponents as "the enemy" and quench the flames of anger? Can we encourage solutions to challenges that transcend political identities for the common good of us all? If your own political will is motivated by anger, how can you channel that into something more productive and less demonizing of others?

Yes. It is called political leadership. The tone is set from the top, by example, by style of communication and by choice of political priorities.

 

[Revoltingest]

An interesting analysis about the role anger has to play in political loyalty and its adverse effects on democracy:

"Anger-filled political rhetoric is nothing new. From Andrew Johnson and Richard Nixon to Newt Gingrich, politicians have long known that angry voters are loyal voters. People will support their party’s candidates locally and nationally so long as they remain sufficiently outraged at the opposing party.
...

Angry people tend to negatively judge the source of their anger. So when politicians continually label each other with crude epithets and infuriate people by taking – or not taking – certain actions, the public responds by lowering their evaluations of Washington. Eventually, they question what government is even capable of.
...

Arguably more harmful for democracy, anger also makes people see supporters of the opposing political party as a threat to the country’s well-being."
From - Angry Americans: How political rage helps campaigns but hurts democracy
​

Is there anything we can do to stop casting our political opponents as "the enemy" and quench the flames of anger? Can we encourage solutions to challenges that transcend political identities for the common good of us all? If your own political will is motivated by anger, how can you channel that into something more productive and less demonizing of others?

Make a conscious decision to avoid feelings either pro
or con for politicians. It soothes me. And you can imagine
what an un-soothed me could be like.

 

[Nakosis]

An interesting analysis about the role anger has to play in political loyalty and its adverse effects on democracy:

"Anger-filled political rhetoric is nothing new. From Andrew Johnson and Richard Nixon to Newt Gingrich, politicians have long known that angry voters are loyal voters. People will support their party’s candidates locally and nationally so long as they remain sufficiently outraged at the opposing party.
...

Angry people tend to negatively judge the source of their anger. So when politicians continually label each other with crude epithets and infuriate people by taking – or not taking – certain actions, the public responds by lowering their evaluations of Washington. Eventually, they question what government is even capable of.
...

Arguably more harmful for democracy, anger also makes people see supporters of the opposing political party as a threat to the country’s well-being."
From - Angry Americans: How political rage helps campaigns but hurts democracy
​

Is there anything we can do to stop casting our political opponents as "the enemy" and quench the flames of anger? Can we encourage solutions to challenges that transcend political identities for the common good of us all? If your own political will is motivated by anger, how can you channel that into something more productive and less demonizing of others?

I wonder how many people won't vote if they are not angry about something.

Of course there are folks who vote on the issues but maybe it's the angry voter that wins you the election. Got to motivate all of those folks who are otherwise satisfied with life.

 

[Quintessence]

Yes. It is called political leadership. The tone is set from the top, by example, by style of communication and by choice of political priorities.

Yes, I agree with this. Other than refusing to vote for candidates whose rhetorical style is toxic even if we support their platform, what could we do on an individual level to blunt this effect or help play down anger?

I wonder how many people won't vote if they are not angry about something.

This is a good and unfortunate point. In some countries, voting is seen as a civic duty or even mandated. My country isn't like that. If we were, perhaps it would blunt the rage-vote and produce better democracy?

 

[Twilight Hue]

An interesting analysis about the role anger has to play in political loyalty and its adverse effects on democracy:

"Anger-filled political rhetoric is nothing new. From Andrew Johnson and Richard Nixon to Newt Gingrich, politicians have long known that angry voters are loyal voters. People will support their party’s candidates locally and nationally so long as they remain sufficiently outraged at the opposing party.
...

Angry people tend to negatively judge the source of their anger. So when politicians continually label each other with crude epithets and infuriate people by taking – or not taking – certain actions, the public responds by lowering their evaluations of Washington. Eventually, they question what government is even capable of.
...

Arguably more harmful for democracy, anger also makes people see supporters of the opposing political party as a threat to the country’s well-being."
From - Angry Americans: How political rage helps campaigns but hurts democracy
​

Is there anything we can do to stop casting our political opponents as "the enemy" and quench the flames of anger? Can we encourage solutions to challenges that transcend political identities for the common good of us all? If your own political will is motivated by anger, how can you channel that into something more productive and less demonizing of others?

Definitely. Get quality candidates that actually accomplish promises in the interest of the voters and not for themselves.

 

[Daemon Sophic]

Perhaps controlling the “News”? Slap big penalties on those claiming to be factual “News” who then go ahead and lie/spin.
Freedom of the Press, Yes, always.
Freedom of what gets to be called “News”, No. Not without regulation.

 

[sun rise]

Make a conscious decision to avoid feelings either pro
or con for politicians.

Being consumed by anger and letting it rule are problems along with fear.

But humans have feelings and make judgements. That's part of being human. It's when fear and anger take over a problem occurs.

 

[Revoltingest]

Being consumed by anger and letting it rule are problems along with fear.

But humans have feelings and make judgements. That's part of being human. It's when fear and anger take over a problem occurs.

One should exercise the control one has.
It's often more than one believes.

 

[Augustus]

Is there anything we can do to stop casting our political opponents as "the enemy" and quench the flames of anger?

Having more than 2 political parties helps as it prevents everything being winner takes all combat.

Can we encourage solutions to challenges that transcend political identities for the common good of us all?

If power is devolved significantly, then yes.

It's much easier at a local level that is more related to tangible realities than it is at a national level that is largely based on abstract narrative.

Human interactions usually don't scale very well.

 

[Valjean]

Yes, I agree with this. Other than refusing to vote for candidates whose rhetorical style is toxic even if we support their platform, what could we do on an individual level to blunt this effect or help play down anger?

Have voters fill out a survey of political positions on various issues. Assign their vote to the candidate who most closely matches their opinions.

I know. It would never fly....

 

[lewisnotmiller]

An interesting analysis about the role anger has to play in political loyalty and its adverse effects on democracy:

"Anger-filled political rhetoric is nothing new. From Andrew Johnson and Richard Nixon to Newt Gingrich, politicians have long known that angry voters are loyal voters. People will support their party’s candidates locally and nationally so long as they remain sufficiently outraged at the opposing party.
...

Angry people tend to negatively judge the source of their anger. So when politicians continually label each other with crude epithets and infuriate people by taking – or not taking – certain actions, the public responds by lowering their evaluations of Washington. Eventually, they question what government is even capable of.
...

Arguably more harmful for democracy, anger also makes people see supporters of the opposing political party as a threat to the country’s well-being."
From - Angry Americans: How political rage helps campaigns but hurts democracy
​

Is there anything we can do to stop casting our political opponents as "the enemy" and quench the flames of anger? Can we encourage solutions to challenges that transcend political identities for the common good of us all? If your own political will is motivated by anger, how can you channel that into something more productive and less demonizing of others?

At a micro-level, the key action is to ensure your own voting habits are informed, and to help inform those around you. I'm talking less here about assessing the issues at hand (which is of course important) and more just being aware of the sort of things you are talking about here. Assessing candidates not only by what they appear to stand for, but for how they campaign, how they are accessing funds, how negative and destructive their language is, what their history is like in terms of following through on campaign promises (even if you disagree with the promise itself).

Basically becoming informed on the process and candidates, and not just the issues.

It's a high bar for many, and ultimately your one vote doesn't become more impactful just because you're a better informed voter, but that's the immediate action everyone should be taking.

At a macro-level, I think there are elements of political reform that would help, particularly around funding and transparency. I would also consider (although I know this won't happen) what the impact of mandatory voting would be. There is way too much effort and talk in US politics about 'galvanising the base'...which is kinda code-speak for getting people angry enough to actually get off their couch and vote.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Have voters fill out a survey of political positions on various issues. Assign their vote to the candidate who most closely matches their opinions.

I know. It would never fly....

I know this would also never fly in the US, but what's your opinion on mandatory voting as a way of somewhat encouraging things in this direction?

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Having more than 2 political parties helps as it prevents everything being winner takes all combat.

Do you think a change to preferential voting might help break the current 2 party nexus?
Right now, if the Dems splintered into 2 parties (for example) all that is effectively happening is that a Republican victory is ensured for the next 20 years, or a minority government formed by coalition is required...

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I wonder how many people won't vote if they are not angry about something.

Of course there are folks who vote on the issues but maybe it's the angry voter that wins you the election. Got to motivate all of those folks who are otherwise satisfied with life.

Yes, I think this sadly holds some truth.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Make a conscious decision to avoid feelings either pro
or con for politicians. It soothes me. And you can imagine
what an un-soothed me could be like.

As long as you're self-soothing, I'm happy. The thought of you requiring external (groundskeeper) Willie-soothing gives me nightmares.

 

[Valjean]

I know this would also never fly in the US, but what's your opinion on mandatory voting as a way of somewhat encouraging things in this direction?

I've got no problem with it. It seems to work in Oz. But I'd foresee a hew and cry from the right about oppressive, big government tyranny. They're already complaining about having to wear masks.

 

[Valjean]

Do you think a change to preferential voting might help break the current 2 party nexus?
Right now, if the Dems splintered into 2 parties (for example) all that is effectively happening is that a Republican victory is ensured for the next 20 years, or a minority government formed by coalition is required...

Ranked choice voting would take a lot of the strategizing and preventive voting out of elections. It would make it politically safe to actually vote for the candidate you like, even from a third party.

 

[Revoltingest]

Ranked choice voting would take a lot of the strategizing and preventive voting out of elections. It would make it politically safe to actually vote for the candidate you like, even from a third party.

Sounds like good reason for the GOP & DNC to fight it.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Sounds like good reason for the GOP & DNC to fight it.

Yes, I think that's a good point.
It's not in the interests of the two major parties to encourage this. Right now, there is probably a simple position to push that you're 'wasting' your vote if you don't vote GOP or DNC.

Funnily enough, we hear that hear, even, although it's actually not true. It's an easy message that some people clearly swallow.