Another Rant:  – Partisan identification

Partisan identification is now a bigger wedge between Americans than race, gender, religion or level of education.

People form social groups to protect themselves from common enemies. They stick with a group despite significant internal conflict because predators quickly annihilate isolated individuals. We have inherited a brain that seeks comfort in social bonds. Common enemies help us sustain those bonds despite inevitable frictions. Your human brain feels good about people who share your dislike of certain candidates and causes. Political anger is a reliable way to enjoy the good feeling of safety in numbers.

But it is not a reliable way to solve problems, because it locks people in to responses that fit their old thought pathways. It would be better if a person would inhibit their anger long enough to at least consider the benefits of new solutions instead of just the threats.

The automatic political responses of others are easy to see, but the automaticity of one’s own response are easy to overlook.

Is their more anger over politics now that in tears past?

My best guess is that there probably is not. Now days anger is more visible to people now, so it seems like there’s more.

We can easily capture video examples of anger and aggression at campaign rallies and post those videos on the Internet for all to see. Likewise, Facebook, twitter, blogs, chain emails, and other sorts of discussion forums offer yet another venue for people to express their frustration.

Consequently, exposure to this might make people feel as though there is more anger over politics than in the past.

As for why politics elicits so much anger from people, it happens for the same reason that people get angry about anything.

People may feel their personal or professional goals are being blocked, that their positions or opinions are being ignored or devalued, or that they can’t cope with the outcome. There are a couple of factors, though, that make anger over politics especially prevalent.

It’s well known that politicians tend to make exaggerated claims about their accomplishments or their opponent’s positions. Those claims are often designed with the explicit purpose of making people angry. Meanwhile, it’s likely that those who don’t believe them respond with anger over what they perceive as dishonesty.

Related to these exaggerated claims, voters have a habit of only paying attention to the information that supports their perspective. They then look only for evidence that confirms their positions and ignore the data that refutes them. When one is on the losing side of an election, it’s easy to feel isolated. That feeling of isolation can spawn feelings of resentment and frustration.

It’s perfectly reasonable to get angry when elected officials and candidates act irresponsibly, endorse positions that may harm us, etc. The decisions that are made by elected officials affect many people in very real ways. Consequently, some are affected quite negatively by those decisions and an angry response might be both reasonable and healthy.

The key is how one chooses to express that anger that matters most. The volume and sheer ubiquity of information about politics, combined with Americans’ ability to instantaneously render public judgment on one another’s views, has made the political conversation much noisier.

Being reasonable requires self-discipline. Anger in its truest form is a vice; it demeans us because it drags us into negative thoughts and perhaps even more negative actions that harm others, including ourselves.

There is, of course, a place for righteous anger. In those instances, it is not only right but incumbent that the individual to speak up and out about issues of incompetency, intolerance, and injustice. Yet raising your voice is hardly enough.

You need to offer remedy as well as solutions. As an individual, say what you believe but leave the vitriol to others. That’s the best way to lead people.