Four Psychological Mechanisms Afflicting U.S. Politics

1. Confirmation Bias

Most of us recognize the influence of confirmation bias, especially as social media algorithms have become exceptionally good at predicting what we want to see. While this may seem harmless for entertainment, it significantly deepens political divides. Before the 1980s, people had access to a limited number of news sources. With the advent of cable TV and hundreds of channels, FOX realized the value of specializing rather than trying to appeal to everyone, especially when competing against well-established media outlets. The Internet then ushered in endless sources of information, and appealing to a general audience no longer made business sense. Today, we expect media outlets to have specific political leanings, and they even endorse political candidates.

Psychologically, this tendency makes sense; most people prefer to be proven right rather than wrong. The joy of learning and personal growth is fundamentally different from the instant dopamine fix that entertainment provides. The former requires a conscious effort to reject the latter. After a full day’s work, we naturally seek a dopamine fix to unwind. Consuming political content today is a form of entertainment, not education.

News media is packed with sensationalized and polemic stories that evoke anger, frustration, and fear. Why would we choose to expose ourselves to such emotions if we just want to relax? Freud explored this idea in Beyond the Pleasure Principle with his concept of the “death drive.” He observed that his patients often revisited or re-enacted past traumatic experiences, noting that “dreams occurring in traumatic patients have the characteristic of repeatedly bringing the patient back into the situation of his accident.” Contemporary psychoanalysts continue to investigate why we possess such a drive, but for our purpose, it’s enough to recognize that it exists. Since the word “pleasure” doesn’t align well with this behavior, Jacques Lacan coined the term “jouissance” to describe both positive and negative feelings we paradoxically enjoy. Though it may seem counterintuitive, we often take pleasure in complaining, venting, and even scaring ourselves. Consider our enjoyment of roller coasters and horror films—activities designed to evoke fear deliberately.

If a Republican voter encounters a video of immigrants committing violent crimes, they might feel both fear and vindication simultaneously. These emotions, though negative, can be pleasurable, which explains why we may find ourselves “doom-scrolling” late into the night.

2. Egocentrism

Given these psychological tendencies, journalists and content creators, under pressure to attract as many viewers as possible, naturally sensationalize and polarize facts. This strategy frightens audiences while affirming their beliefs, reinforcing their egos. There’s no need to create fake news; the truth is often enough. In fact, genuine facts are more effective and sustainable in cultivating a loyal audience, making truth a greater problem than fake news.

Once an audience becomes addicted to this steady dopamine intake, egocentrism takes hold. They have little motivation to understand perspectives that challenge their own, as reading an article that contradicts their beliefs feels as unwelcome as a cold shower.

To justify this closed-mindedness, people often discredit opinions or even facts from sources they distrust. Democrats generally disregard anything from FOX, while Republicans avoid content from the New York Times. This mindset is a form of ad hominem attack: instead of evaluating facts or logic on their own, people assume they’re flawed based on their perception of the presenter. For example, just because Hitler strongly opposed animal cruelty does not make ethical treatment of animals incorrect.

Once media outlets or writers reveal their political positions, especially endorsements, they risk being dismissed by those on the opposing side. To reach a broader audience, they must keep their political leanings secret.

The audience hooked on dopamine also becomes intolerant of others. Since their satisfaction derives from proving themselves right, virtuous, or superior, accepting that contradictory opinions may also be valid feels threatening and undermines their enjoyment.

Moreover, they lose interest in finding solutions. It’s akin to removing scary scenes from a horror movie or slowing down a rollercoaster to avoid triggering negative emotions. Consider, for example, trying to reassure Republicans concerned about Big Tech’s collusion with the government to censor dissent (such as the censorship of the “lab leak theory” during the pandemic or the firing of James Damore for criticizing Google’s efforts to close the gender gap) by explaining how difficult it would be to repeal freedom of speech protections in the U.S. Instead of feeling reassured, they might resent you for seemingly undermining their concerns. Similarly, if you inform Democrats who fear Trump’s potential authoritarianism of the near impossibility of abolishing presidential term limits, they might react negatively, accusing you of being “tone-deaf” or dismissive of their fears.

3. Out-group Homogeneity Bias

Out-group homogeneity bias, a common double standard, often prevents people from acknowledging the diversity of opinions within opposing groups. Democrats, for instance, may view the Capitol rioters on January 6th as representative of all Republicans. Even if they consciously recognize that not all Republicans would participate in such a riot, they have little motivation to correct their perceptions. Similarly, Republicans who see videos of violent left-wing protesters, however rare they may be, may assume all Democrats are uncivilized and self-righteous. This bias allows people to enjoy their fear, anger, and feelings of superiority, reducing their opponents to a single dimension.

Quoting people out of context or even willfully misinterpreting is quite common on both sides. This, too, is part of the effort to homogenize opponents. These days, whenever I ask someone whether they read the original source, the answer is rarely yes because, for the purpose of getting a dopamine fix, there is no incentive to do such a thing.

This issue is especially challenging within America’s two-party system. With only two viable choices, voters often find themselves having to pick a candidate despite disagreeing with some of their policies. For example, if you vote for a Republican candidate because you believe they will improve the economy, someone who voted for the opposing candidate based on their stance on women’s rights might perceive you as opposing women’s rights, even if that isn’t the case.

4. Desire for Authoritarianism

When anger and fear reach a high enough level, desperation can lead people to yearn for an authoritarian leader. This tendency is more visible on the right, but it also exists on the left. Corporations, which have an authoritarian structure, give CEOs the power to decide what is “moral,” “ethical,” or “inappropriate” and to enforce those values as if they are the arbiters of “universal” and “objective.” Luckily for Democrats, most college-educated white-collar tech employees predominantly lean liberal, so corporate values align with their ideals. Colleges today suppress controversial ideas that may be perceived as unsafe by some students. College professors and administrators, who are overwhelmingly liberal, can dictate right and wrong, and indoctrinate their students. Democrats welcome this form of authoritarianism as democracy is an inherently slow process, too slow to counter their perceived threats.

As social media algorithms fuel people’s fear and paranoia, the desire for authoritarianism grows on both sides. Only through psychoanalytic self-reflection can we step back and understand what we are doing to ourselves, but defense mechanisms are so entrenched that self-intervention is nearly impossible. Many people resist analysis for this reason, seeing unsolicited analysis as invasive and even immoral. But if we all refuse to recognize our own biases, double standards, and defenses, the walls of our political bubbles will continue to grow thicker. Since our opponents are not listening to us, the only way to break out of the bubble is to analyze ourselves. Ultimately, these walls won’t protect us if our political division reaches an impasse that can only be settled by bullets. FDR’s famous quote, “only thing we have to fear is fear itself,” applies here. If this conflict devolves into a civil war, everyone’s paranoia will be proven true. They could perhaps die saying, “I told you so,” and that might be the only consolation.