Verified by 
Psychology
The Psychology of Political Hatred
What do your political beliefs say about you?
Posted September 29, 2020
There is an element of the psychiatric Mental Status Exam that tests what is called "fund of knowledge." Does the patient know the capital of Italy? The number of feet in a yard? The planet closest to the sun? Asking such questions can help clinicians estimate general cognitive ability and the relative richness of the patient's developmental experiences.
Typically, the easiest question when testing fund of knowledge is "Who is the president of the United States?" Some people might miss this question because they have advanced dementia and they think that it is 1985 and that Ronald Reagan is in office. Others might be malingering so as to profit from a disability claim (especially if they are unable to pick the correct name from a list of three names provided to them ("Is it Harry Belafonte, Donald Trump, or Felix Mendelsohn?"). Other people struggle with the question because they have severe problems with verbal recall or anxiety: "Oh, my. Gosh. I can't believe this. What's wrong with me? The guy from the TV show. The really rich guy. Why can't I remember his name—Trump!" And some people have a limited ability to take in and retain information from their environment: "Oh that guy—he's always running his mouth. I don't know his name. The guy with the hair."
After President Trump's inauguration in January 2017, some psychologists on social media had fun posting what they said were quotes from patients who had recently been given the Mental Status Exam:
"Oh, don't make me say his name."
"He's not MY President."
"Hillary Clinton—Putin stole the election."
"The crook and liar who is going to be impeached."
The suggestion from these supposedly humorous posts was not only that these patients had no problems with regard to their Mental Status, but that their psychologists agreed with the sentiments expressed. Now consider this statement made by a hypothetical patient:
"I'm not happy about the results of the election. I think that the only reason he's President is because of foreign interference. The guy is a fraud and a liar and I think he's going to absolutely destroy this country. He's going to be a dictator. He'll never leave office. You'll see. He's a narcissistic megalomaniac who doesn't believe in anything but himself. I hate to say it but I think the only way he's going to leave is if he's put in prison or if—and I really hope this doesn't happen—somebody puts a bullet in his head."
What if a patient said that in response to the Mental Status Exam question, "Who is the President of the United States?" Would it be clinically informative? Should we be worried about this patient? Is he dangerous? My guess is that most psychologists in the United States today would not only find this statement innocuous, but that they might even agree with the sentiments expressed.
But what if this statement wasn't made in late November 2016? What if the patient wasn't talking about President-elect Trump? What if the statement was made in November 2008 and the patient was talking about President-elect Obama (or, as this patient might say, "Barack HUSSEIN Obama"). Does this change our interpretation of the statement? Should it? Aren't people entitled to hold political opinions that differ from our own? Or are there certain political opinions that are "more correct" than others? Do mental health clinicians have special knowledge of what constitute "good and true" political opinions? Should we pathologize people who don't share our political opinions? I contend that viewing the statement in question as innocuous when applied to a politician you oppose and threatening or even deranged when applied to a politician you support is a sign that your clinical judgment may be biased by your political beliefs.
It is not healthy for people who live in a two-party democracy to demonize those who do not share their views. It is also not good practice for mental health clinicians to hate people who don't vote the way they do. After all, on average, about half of your patients are going to disagree with your political beliefs. What might be a healthier approach?
1. Expand your horizons. If all of your friends or colleagues vote the same way you do, you need some new friends or colleagues. The reason you might not believe that there are people of intelligence and good will on the other side of the political fence might be because you live in a political echo chamber. It also might be because the people who know you have heard you talk politics so vehemently that they don't wish to upset or alienate you by voicing their true opinions. Chances are that the most politically vehement people have people in their orbit who feel compelled to stay quiet about their own politics.
2. Be humble. You need to go farther than just saying, "I'm sure that there are people of intelligence and good will on both sides of the political fence." You need to entertain the idea that your own beliefs might be misguided. Every time you say something like "the minimum wage should be raised" or "we need to get tough on North Korea," try ending those statements with "but I could be wrong." You could be very wrong. You could be horribly, catastrophically wrong. Accept that there are no simple solutions to any complex problem, and that there is no way of accurately foreseeing the unintended consequences of policy proposals. Practice saying, "I don't think I know enough about that issue to have an opinion on it."
3. Be compassionate. For some people, following politics is a form of entertainment. But it is entertainment of a special sort. When you listen to people talk about a politician they hate, they often seem to be enjoying themselves in a strange way. When they talk about a politician's supposed corruption and hoped for comeuppance, often what you are witnessing is sadism. Sadism is one of humanity's least attractive qualities, and for that reason we aren't always good at spotting it in all it's manifestations. Sadism is present whenever a person takes pleasure in another person's actual or potential harm or humiliation. You're looking forward to somebody's crushing defeat at the polls? You're being sadistic. Politics, unlike investment banking, is a zero sum game: It's not enough to win—others must lose.
4. Tend your own garden. Sadly, politics is often used to fill a void in a person's life. They want a distraction from their own unsatisfying life, or want to find a external cause that they can blame for their unhappiness. It is remarkable how infrequently contented people get upset about politics. Maybe your fixation on politics is a sign that you need to create more good in your own small corner of the world. Shovel the driveway of an elderly neighbor. Volunteer to teach someone English. Be kind and generous to your family and friends.
