During the U.S. presidential election campaign, the fluctuating polling figures have been likened to softly undulating hills. For many voters, this experience has been emotionally tumultuous, likely resulting in either a peak of excitement or a trough of despair.
This year, a survey by the American Psychological Association identified concerns about the nation’s future as the primary cause of significant stress for 77% of adults. Five years prior, healthcare and mass shootings were the top concerns. Currently, nearly 69% of individuals consider the upcoming presidential election a major stress factor, comparable to 2020 and significantly higher than the 52% who felt this way in 2016.
The campaign has been driven largely by emotion rather than reason, a sentiment echoed by experts who highlight the heightened tribalism and negativity in political discourse. According to Pew Research, Americans increasingly hold negative views about those with differing perspectives, perceiving them as closed-minded, dishonest, immoral, and unintelligent.
In Europe, similar emotional dynamics are shaping politics. A survey by Kapa Research across ten EU countries revealed a strong undercurrent of fear influencing voting behavior.
There is a debate over whether modern voters prioritize emotions over rational thought, which could potentially disturb the balance essential for a healthy public discourse, a concept discussed by Aristotle in his work on rhetoric, which emphasizes the necessity of combining reason, emotion, and character to persuade effectively. Barack Obama exemplifies this approach, perceived as an intelligent and integrity-driven leader capable of emotionally engaging voters.
Recently, the presence of leaders like Obama has become atypical. Reason, or logos, appears to be diminishing in campaigns, which increasingly rely on emotionally resonant slogans such as “Make America Great Again” or simple calls for “change,” exemplified by British Prime Minister Keir Starmer, often lacking details on implementation.
It seems emotion now dominates the political landscape, with reason and character playing secondary roles. Nevertheless, many voter psychology experts caution against overstating this conclusion.
Michael Bruter, a political science professor and director of the Electoral Psychology Observatory at the London School of Economics (LSE), contends that emotionality and rationality are inherently intertwined. As demonstrated in the Brexit referendum, the divide is not neatly categorized into rational versus emotional.
Historically, voting was often influenced by identity rather than thoughts, challenging the notion of purely rational decision-making. Social media has intensified emotional responses, with platforms like Facebook and Twitter amplifying emotions since 2009, as observed by American social psychologist Jonathan Haidt. Despite this amplification, Myisha Cherry of the University of California, Riverside, argues that emotions have always been fundamental to politics.
Emotions are complex states related to judgments about the world, and they can be rational or irrational, justified or unjustified, explains Lisa Bortolotti, a philosophy professor at the University of Birmingham. As Cherry illustrates, voters’ decisions often involve a blend of emotional responses and reasoned considerations.
Cherry argues that while emotions are prominent, they have not overshadowed rational considerations in politics over the past decades. On pressing issues like climate change and reproductive rights, emotions play a crucial role alongside rational considerations.
Therefore, the link between emotions and political judgments is complex, with emotions often springing from judgments. According to Bruter, emotional frameworks provide coherence to various voting behaviors. The perception of voter rationality might be affected by unrealistic expectations of human decision-making.
Bringing both heart and mind into electoral decisions is appropriate, and the notion of increased emotionality at the expense of rationality is weaker than suggested. However, animosity towards opponents has grown, sometimes overshadowing party allegiance.
Cherry identifies two dangerous forms of anger: “rogue rage,” directed at perceived scapegoats like immigrants, and “wipe rage,” an unfocused anger prompting reckless actions. Such sentiment may lead voters to focus more on opposing the other party than supporting their own candidate. Political hostility, rather than polarization, is increasingly characterizing politics, according to Bruter and his LSE colleague Sarah Harrison.
Hostility, skepticism, and cynicism are growing towards politicians and institutions, culminating in widespread voter disillusionment or “democratic frustration.” This sentiment increases the risk of rejecting democratic processes in favor of alternative, perhaps harmful, means of achieving goals.
Ethos, or character, has become less significant in an environment of cynicism. Disillusioned voters may favor disruptors like Donald Trump and Boris Johnson due to their outsider status, seeing them as a counter to mainstream politics. The electoral system struggles to address such disillusionment, prompting some to express dissatisfaction through protest votes.
Tackling fake news requires understanding why people distrust traditional experts, reflecting a complex interplay of emotional and intellectual responses exacerbated by a lack of faith in institutions. Building trust in expertise and institutions could mitigate negative emotions arising from cynicism.
Ultimately, the challenge is addressing the behaviors stemming from emotions rather than the emotions themselves. Election outcomes will test voters’ responses, and learning to manage emotions constructively will be crucial. As Cherry notes, moral progress requires continuous effort, regardless of election results.
