The Deeper Roots of Political Struggle (copyright 2005)

by Peter Michaelson

The battle between the left and right wings, or the blue and red states, is only secondarily about issues or values. It is foremost about the negativity and conflict operating in the human psyche.

We know how hot-tempered we can get talking about evolution, abortion, gay marriage, or disarmament. In addressing these and other topics, we can easily react to the negativity that is unresolved in our own psyche. This negativity includes feeling helpless to express ourselves convincingly, fear of being undermined by the conviction of others or having to submit to their agenda, a sense that we need to be right to have substance or standing, the fear of looking foolish or stupid, and the impression that we are being disrespected or devalued by the challenge to our beliefs.

These negative impressions have to do with our psychology, not with the facts or the truth of the debate. But we are reluctant to see inwardly and acknowledge our unresolved negativity. So we take the easy way out. We convince ourselves that the negativity we are feeling is caused by the meanness or pig-headedness of those we oppose.

Negativity is a powerful component of human nature. The appeal of the negative explains why, for instance, politicians use negative advertising. It “works” (in getting people elected, not for making for a better country) because so many voters, seeing or hearing negative advertising, are enthralled, though they are not conscious of why. The voice denouncing the political candidate is mirroring the self-criticism we hear every day, usually unconsciously, from our inner critic. Often these inner accusations are completely unjust, because the “faults” being identified are often only our human limitations.

When we hear someone else—a political candidate, for instance—being described in the unsavory language of negative political advertising, we are able to deflect our own inner critic with the argument, You see what a worthless rascal that person is. So why are you so hard on me? Back off and lighten up. In order to make this argument effectively, that at least I’m not as bad as that guy, we feel required to vote against the rascal. Often, of course, having seen the negative ads from both camps, it is a tough choice as to which candidate is the worse reprobate.

When liberals, conservatives, or independents see and hear negative commercials attacking politicians, their own negativity is aroused. Even when the words of attack are lies, people are tempted unconsciously to experience the negative implications—that so-and-so is a fraud: Trying to pull the wool over our eyes, is he? How dare he run for Congress in my district!

Our baser instincts are aroused because that negativity is alive and well (clinically, unwell) in our psyche. The seduction of emotionalism prevails, and negative impressions can influence us quicker and more convincingly than insight or truth. Many people are unconsciously waiting to be swayed by a negative feeling in preference to a positive insight, especially if the negative impression “validates” their cynical outlook. Moreover, many people are anxious to relieve the tension of being unresolved or undecided, and they will take the shoddiest opportunities to relieve the tension.

Our secret embrace of the negative protects the inner status quo, maintaining the ego’s predominance and blocking psychological growth.

Instead of being exposed, our negativity is being exploited. Financial interests are able to commercialize human negativity, as in the appeal and spread of political talk radio. The media serves up whatever trash draws a crowd, whose negativity is attracted to the harsh, ridiculing, and condemning tone and content of these broadcasts. The same psychological principles apply, whether the content is left or right wing, when our airwaves are contaminated by the static of negativity.

The viewers and listeners of trash-talk media love to hear others being scorned and spited. They need convenient targets for their own considerable venom, and the political, social, or religious beliefs of others are seized upon by those looking for outlets for unconscious negativity.

When radio and TV commentators rant and rave, the psyche of their listeners and viewers also engages in identification. The inner excitement is created because the program listener or viewer identifies unconsciously with the feeling of being on the receiving end of the verbal attack (which is his frequent experience vis-à-vis his own inner critic). Thus, he feels a perverse pleasure in seeing someone else on the receiving end of this venom.

The lessening of human negativity is humanity’s sublime labor. It is the best security in a world where weapons of mass destruction are science’s robust, evolving spawn and terrorism the propagation of irrationality and negativity. As Jose Arguelles writes in The Transformative Vision, “We must begin to see that whatever else we may undertake in the near future, we must embark on the willed exploration of our own inner space.” This is, he adds, “the evolutionary imperative.”