Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

The Psychology of Politics

Opinion

The Psychology of Politics

An illustration of people and their unique minds.

Getty Images, Carol Yepes

Have you ever wondered why so many otherwise reasonable people are completely bananas about politics? We all know plenty of normal and decent folks who spout wacky political views. But it’s not just our neighbors who’ve gone mad. All over the country, Americans pick and choose the facts they want to believe, champion policies they don’t understand, hold contradictory views at the same time, admire immoral politicians, loathe decent ones, and so on.

What’s going on here? And why does it seem to be getting worse?


Indeed, this irrationality has reached such heights that Joe Biden served as President of the United States despite his clearly declining mental facilities, with little objection from nearly half the country. And, even worse, a reality television star, Donald Trump, was nominated by his party and elected president for the second time after openly trying to reverse a presidential election.

Something’s going on here. Something odd and unnerving. But what, exactly, is it? What explains America’s deeply confused and dysfunctional politics?

The answer is the human mind. It’s psychology. The psychology of politics is what’s fueling this mess.

For starters, the human mind evolved over millennia in environments far different from modern society. We developed as a species in small tribal settings where most stimuli could be directly seen, touched, and experienced. We hunted. We gathered. We told stories by the fire. Our ancestors didn't read newspapers or listen to podcasts. They didn't watch cable news. And they certainly didn't doom scroll algorithmic social-media feeds at the wee hours of the night.

Our minds are simply not engineered to accurately grasp the distant and complicated happenings of modern-day politics. We don’t do well with statistics. We over-simplify stories. We’re over-confident about what we know and understand. Figuring out what a new policy will actually achieve or who said what behind closed doors—all from a great distance—is just not something we do well. Yet, that’s what politics is all about.

Moreover, our tribal roots make us, well, tribal. We evolved relying on small tribes to help us survive. Our tribal mates helped us find food and shelter. And they protected us from rival clans. Humans thus find profound joy and comfort from being on a team. This powerful aspect of human psychology causes us to interpret political happenings in favor of our tribe and against the other side—even when facts and logic demand a different perspective.

Complicating things even further, numerous cognitive biases impact how we consume and process information. Individually, these systematic mental defects skew our thinking. Taken together, they wallop our senses and distort our paradigms. Several play a huge role in politics. Confirmation Bias makes us interpret new information in line with existing beliefs and loyalties. Hindsight Bias makes us think we were right about our previous views even when we were wrong. The Narrative Bias makes us create stories out of disparate facts, even when the facts don't support the story. The Availability Heuristic makes us over-weigh the importance of the information we are aware of (that's available) compared to other relevant information.

A powerful bias that compounds and overlays all these other mental glitches, moreover, is Bias Bias: we don't think we're biased at all. As cognitive psychologist Carol Tavris explained, “The brain is designed with blind spots, optical and psychological, and one of its cleverest tricks is to confer on its owner the comforting delusion that he or she does not have any.” We humans thus righteously proclaim our unique version of the truth, certain we’re correct yet oblivious to all the holes and errors in what we espouse.

In sum, we are tribal, biased creatures with a machine between our ears—the human mind—that doesn't work the way we think it does. And this machine is the tool we use to think about politics. The political news we ingest must first be run through our psychology in order to reach our conclusions. Is it any wonder, then, that our politics are stark raving mad? Indeed, most of what we call politics boils down to this: people and politicians making sense of the world and then expressing their opinions—at the dinner table, online, at the water cooler, from behind the podium.

We must do better. It’s fine to be biased with sports. Who cares if millions of disgruntled fans wrongly believe the refs cost them the game? But politics is different. In a democratic society, the views of the populace determine elections, shape policies, and influence decisions about war and peace. The more these views are rooted in accurate thinking—and the less they are distorted by psychological factors—the better the outcomes will be. Put simply: if we want rational policies and politicians, we must first be rational ourselves.

William Cooper is the author of How America Works … And Why It Doesn’t.

Read More

The Knicks and the Practice of Us

Jalen Brunson #11 of the New York Knicks celebrates with the Larry O'Brien Championship Trophy during the New York Knicks Championship ticker tape parade and victory rally celebrating winning the 2026 NBA Finals on June 18, 2026 in New York City.

(Photo by Angelina Katsanis/Getty Images)

The Knicks and the Practice of Us

I didn’t grow up anywhere near Madison Square Garden. My childhood unfolded in the Midwest, far from New York’s tangled boroughs and yellow cabs. My father brought the city with him, tucked in the vowels of his accent and the teams he rooted for. He was a Jersey boy at first. Then, a reluctant Midwesterner. Geography, though, never truly loosened its grip. In our house, sports allegiance wasn’t a choice. It was inherited—an expectation passed like a family recipe. Or a story retold until it blurs into fact.

For my father, and then for me, the Knicks were never just a team. They were a test of endurance. Before I could distinguish a pick-and-roll from a triangle offense, I understood Knicks loyalty: you waited. You hoped in public, persisted when heartbreak was routine. Knicks fandom was boot camp for disappointment. The main skill was getting up after being knocked down.

Keep ReadingShow less
Reclaiming Patriotism: Between Nationalism and Pessimism

People gather over a giant Declaration of Independence

Photo by Mario Tama/Getty Images.

Reclaiming Patriotism: Between Nationalism and Pessimism

As America approaches the 250th anniversary of its independence, I am more in the mood to protest than to celebrate. Does that make me unpatriotic? The answer depends on how we understand “patriotism.” For a nation that is founded in revolution, let’s affirm a deeper and more profound love of country, a civic patriotism celebrative of our larger ideals including pluralism, dissent, and a commitment to social change.

Two Types of Patriotism

Keep ReadingShow less
A New Path to Depolarization: Media That Brings Us Together
Political polarization
Polarization and the politics of love

A New Path to Depolarization: Media That Brings Us Together

As we face ever-growing partisan polarization in American society, the need for large-scale action becomes increasingly urgent. As James Coan and I have written about in the Fulcrum during my time at More Like US, there are approaches grounded in a significant body of social psychological research that can help address this rapidly growing problem, namely different variations of social contact theory, especially vicarious contact. Until recently, much of the research and thus much of the basis for our articles has been focused on applying social contact theory to other problems facing society: prejudice against members of the LGBTQ community, individuals with autism, and immigrant schoolchildren, among other examples.

It was therefore exciting when last fall I saw the publication of an article in Political Science Research and Methods titled "Content That's as Good as Contact?: Vicarious Intergroup Contact and the Promise of Depolarization at Scale." The study, conducted in 2022 in conjunction with YouGov, finally attempted to measure the effectiveness of indirect contact as a path to depolarization, primarily through the vicarious experience of productive political conversation. Encompassing over 2,000 participants gathered from a nationally representative sample recruited by YouGov’s online panel, the study looked to test affective polarization, measured attitudinally, and interest and investment in depolarization, measured behaviorally. To this end, the study tested multiple media interventions, namely a 50-minute Braver Angels documentary featuring a “Red-Blue” depolarization workshop; a 50-minute placebo nature documentary about wildebeest migration; a 5-minute version of the Braver Angels documentary; a second 5-minute version that emphasized partisan misperception correction; and a pure control group, with no treatment.

Keep ReadingShow less
How Red and Blue America Can Stay Together by Pulling Apart

United States Marine Corps Lockheed Martin F-35B Lightning II STOVL stealth multirole fighters belonging to the VMFA-121 "Green Knights" taxiing at the MCAS Iwakuni in Yamaguchi, Japan, on March 23, 2017.

(viper-zero / Getty Images)

How Red and Blue America Can Stay Together by Pulling Apart

In earlier essays, I argued that America’s political division has grown so deep that a peaceful “American Union” of two sovereign nations — one broadly red, one broadly blue — is worth considering. I also argued that relocation fears are overstated, that cooperation could increase economic prosperity, and that separation could help heal the lingering wounds of the Civil War.

But how would this all actually work? What happens to the national debt? Who gets the military bases, federal lands, and nuclear weapons? Will Social Security be protected? Could two nations share the dollar, defend themselves together, and resolve their disagreements?

Keep ReadingShow less