A psychological view of the election
I was working on finishing up a different post, but then recognized that this will be my last post prior to November’s election. Voting is already underway in some states. As usual, I’m not going to express opinions on who is right, or get into specifics of political policy. I’m going to focus on a few areas of election psychology with communal importance.
Culture of extremes
One area of concern is that we’re in a culture of extremes. Often, there are assumptions that one person is right, the other wrong. That if I believe a person’s perspective on one issue is immoral, therefore that person is bad. Or, that one’s political party is ethical and honest, while the other is greedy and immoral. Or, most pressing, that our country’s viability comes down to one vote, or one person. This type of all-or-nothing thinking can seem logical at first. Stakes are indeed high. These are important questions and paths. But psychologically, an all-or-nothing approach shuts off discourse. If it really is win or you’re done, what’s the point in considering alternatives? And you don’t have a democracy any longer without discourse.
Perhaps this is fear-driven reasoning, as well. If the alternative scares me, I will dig in and fight. For better and for worse, progress has never been all-or-nothing. Emancipation was followed by Jim Crow. Women have had the vote for a century, and yet still do not have equal representation in congress. We got rid of many of the protections that enabled broader prosperity in the mid-20th century, and now are in a new gilded age of income disparity. Progress is not won or lost. It is imagined, built, maintained, repaired, and remodeled when we discover new vital directions.
Zero-sum perspective
Individual decisions can be zero-sum. There will only be one World Series winner (this year). If I am applying for a job, either I get it, or someone else does. And when this is the case, this awareness can be helpful. I may want to, for example, show why I am uniquely suited for the job. However, most important parts of our life are not individual like that. A job fits into a career path. A date fits into lifelong partnership goals. Politics and politicians fit into a system of mutual support to maintain a country that fits our values and purpose.
I would not have achieved my current career state without working with and learning from people who might at times be teammates and at times competitors. Setbacks along the way, like not getting into a particular school or internship, are only setbacks when it comes to that school/internship. Put in context, they are turns along a broader path. Are there skills I need to strengthen? Was there a mismatch, and if so, what can I learn from that?
When our nation has different perspectives on policy or politicians, this is expected and normal. Additionally, the decisions that come out of it are not winner take all. Those who lost the battle adjust, reconsider, and as necessary, find new ways to fight for our needs. If we do not put ourselves and our communities in context, we are missing out.
Our national psychosis
We, as a people, are psychotic right now. Not necessarily as individuals, although many of us do show political paranoia, with the belief that anything “from the other side” is manipulative and dangerous. But as a group. There is a long-standing (mis)impression that psychosis is contained within someone’s mind – they are not “in touch with reality.” This is untrue, for many reasons. I go into this more deeply in my classes. Actually, there is no psychosis without an interaction. People who do not hear the same thing. People who do not share the same belief. This is why the diagnostic manual is careful to hedge. There is a section within schizophrenia titled, “Culture-Related Diagnostic Issues,” which essentially notes that a particular presentation of any “symptom” of psychosis may be quite appropriate in another cultural context (APA, 2022, ppg. 118-119).
In a country of 340 million people, the US has many cultures with many quite diverse contexts. Psychosis does not happen when beliefs or experiences simply differ. It happens when these differences lead to conflict or dysfunction. For example, January 6, 2021. Or, a congress that has trouble passing basic legislation to keep the government running, or to elect a speaker. When we are looking to denigrate and remove basic free speech rights and other civil liberties from those who disagree with us.
American paranoia
Our group paranoia sometimes argues that we can manipulate those who disagree – that the ends justify the means. People intentionally spread rumors and misinformation, just because we hope it will harm the position of people we disagree with. We use demeaning terms of hate openly. This one is particularly dangerous, because it feels harmless to them and self-righteous to ourselves. It is far from harmless, and I have seen many people of all political perspectives do this. This is a psychological tool whereby we, and those we are talking with, stop seeing others as humans, with strengths and flaws and all the in-betweens. Instead, they become objects and obstacles. Something to sweep out of the way, so we can just live our lives. Guess what? They deserve to just live their lives, too.
Progress is not won or lost. It is imagined, built, maintained, repaired, and remodeled when we discover new vital directions.
Do you recognize some of that derogatory thinking in yourself? Don’t despair, it’s okay. Often, we come to those ideas because we want to protect the people we care about. Do you know what the best protection is? Turning assumed enemies into allies. If you recognize their humanity, chances are good they will notice yours. You still don’t have to agree with their beliefs.
Election psychology: Who is in charge?
In republics like ours, sources of power seem to go in cycles. One subgroup dominates for a while, then others broaden control, then another subgroup (or the same one) retakes control, then others broaden it again. Money is usually the mechanism. Our laws and practices go likewise. We institute laws to support one group, inadvertently (or intentionally) removing power from another. Laws change, or are reinterpreted, and different voices cry out for their rights. I think this power struggle is something the US founders predicted. Thomas Jefferson expressed the belief that the country may need periodic revolutions in order to renew commitment to its ideals, or to find new ones.
Nevertheless, violence is neither necessary, nor, generally, productive. Instead, the progress we have made has come from working together (relatively speaking – there have always been bitter debates). I remember learning the political expression “logjam” in school. This is a challenge that has always been with us.
Election psychology: The long game
In Romeo and Juliet, Friar Laurence advises, “Wisely and slow, they stumble that run fast.” When working with families dealing with psychosis, slowing things down is a backbone of effective support. Fear, hostility, and judgment lead to increased speed, which inevitably creates crises. Crises hurt people. Politicians and the media stoke this natural tendency by making each moment an all-or-nothing, zero-sum, competitive crisis.
Don’t get me wrong – right now the election is upon us. Elections are natural crisis points. Now we need our energy and enthusiasm, to finish strong. But just like in sports, the next season starts the very next day. Because whoever is in office, we are still here. We are still judging each other and attacking each other. We also have many ways of making our voices heard, peacefully, when those in the government stop listening. Let’s keep that perspective. This is about all of us, not just two of us.
Final note: Anxiety and the election
I’ve seen a lot of talk about politics raising everyone’s anxiety. And it has lately, no question. But there’s an assumption made: anxiety = bad. Get rid of it. This is a problematic assumption. As always, emotions are not good or bad – they are information. Instead of leaping to trying to get rid of the anxiety (“tune out the election”, or “find ways to destress”), first listen to what the message is. We may each have different interpretations of the message. That may lead us in different directions, but that’s okay. My interpretation is what I concluded above: if we play the long game, slow down our attacks, and listen to and work with each other, we can build a functional, compassionate national community. When we address the problem, when we’ve listened to ourselves and each other, then and only then will the anxiety reduce.