Emotions and Populism

Mistaken as purely a sociological movement, populism’s roots are truly emotional. It is the emotionality in a large segment of the population that drives people to join the populist movement. The emotionality is triggered off by a cause or a perception related to a larger social issue, as the segment sees it. This is often a social segment that is feeling powerless and suppressed, with leaders who can sense the emotional mood and need of the population and help organize the group to a higher level of organization. They sense that people are suffering and hurting emotionally and promise to meet those needs and relieve their suffering.

There is always a genuine material and social need that the people feel, whether it is a need for more money, more jobs, more power, a greater identity, higher security, more transportation, more schools, or even more freedom. These are genuine needs at another level, above the deeper emotional level, which lurks underneath. The emotional needs are what truly drive the push for the satisfaction of the higher need, whether it be material, prestige, education, recognition, or something else and bring the people what they are truly seeking at an emotional level. Aspects such as prestige and recognition have definite emotional components related to self-esteem, validation and acceptance that they may be seeking. Below those aspects are often deeper emotional needs, such as a feeling that a powerful leader can rescue them from the realm of the forgotten and ignored. This can be a wonderful development for them, or it can be problematic.

Emotional thinking is characteristic of the populist movement. When people have quick, impulsive, reflexive replies to statements, that is a good clue that they are using emotional thinking (unless they are politicians giving scripted prepared remarks). Emotional thinking makes them prone to absorbing emotional contagion, and the simple message that it often contains.  Daniel Kahneman, a Nobel prize-winning psychologist, talked about two systems of the mind, System 1 and System 2, in his best-selling book, Thinking, Fast and Slow.[1]  In System 1, the fast system, the mind is thought to operate automatically and quickly, with little or no effort in thinking and no sense of voluntary control. In the fast system, quick, emotionally laden thinking dominates. In System 2, the slow system, attention is allocated to effortful mental activity, including complex computations, agency, choice, and concentration. It takes longer to make computations and comparisons, thinking reasonably and purposefully, than it does to think automatically and involuntarily.  The word “slow” is not correct, it is misleading, it just means the thinking is not quick and snappy like fast thinking, it just takes a little longer, a reasonable amount of time to think it through, but it is not slow like molasses.

Emotions carry only simple messages, at best just a few words. Emotional thinking cannot understand anything related to complexity, facts or data. Some people who engage in emotional thinking tend to use simple thinking, thinking along the lines of “what you see is all there is.” They are prone then to ignore seeing the situation from many perspectives, although there are always different perspectives to a situation. They jump to conclusions that what they see at the outset, or how they interpret a situation that is initially described to them, is all there is to see and or understand about it and then they make judgments based on that.

When emotional needs push for gratification in a populist movement, when it is problematic, it means that the usual cognitive attributes, such as critical thinking, systematic reasoning, logical analysis and problem-solving skills which help cope with common stressors usually fall by the wayside. They are pushed aside by the force of the emotion, magnified through emotional contagion in a group or a crowd. This can result in a feeling of entitlement as if someone has granted them the ability for entitlement to what they seek. This is such an overwhelming feeling that it just comes on and takes over the person, and spreads among people through social and emotional contagion becoming very powerful. Related emotions can move strongly and quickly through a crowd, being contagious, especially in a political movement with a specific goal. So, they may ignore rules and laws and just take what they think they are entitled to, whether a building, a few streets, a section of a city, new regulations, better jobs, different conditions, or something even bigger, like large segments of a country.  

The rise of populism appears to occur as a psychological reaction to feared domination. It may even be a feared psychological, emotional, financial or actual annihilation of people by the powerful. This may be based on reality, or it may be a perception that is not based in reality. It may be the striving amongst the population for a feeling of power from a leader who they sense can help get they, the powerless, what they are seeking. In order to overcome feelings of powerlessness, they are looking for a “white knight”, a savior, who will rescue them from the domination that they fear will overtake or even annihilate them. That domination is usually perceived to exist in the government in power, in the mainstream media, in the wealthy who they perceive to be in control, or in a combination of the above.   

The powerless naturally have strong feelings about a perceived threat to their survival. They will often fear a takeover by the powerful social class. This will trigger a psychological reaction to defend against this perceived threat which implies annihilation. This rewarding feeling provides a feeling of power. The fear and the feelings of potential power travel among people and groups through the dynamics of emotional contagion, where feelings and emotions rub off on people who sense them and absorb them from the people in proximity. It may feel like it is real, due to the reality of the perceived movement of emotions due to emotional contagion because people absorb the emotions from like-minded people nearby, thereby strengthening the inner feeling of emotional reward. However, this does not mean that the people are actually powerless, although on some occasions they are. There is a degree of powerlessness that varies among people and groups of people. So, it may be quite true for some, even if not a complete truth, and less true for others, although still present. Often it can be an irrational fear. Sometimes unscrupulous politicians will convince people they are more powerless than they really are and then feed off this feeling to get their votes. It is better to teach them about the power they do have, as a vote in a group may get them the changes they desire.

Since this powerlessness is a pervasive feeling, those involved are likely to come out in droves to fight it off as the feeling spreads and grows through emotional contagion. It may feel greater than the actuality of the powerlessness due to the power of emotion. For this reason, it is important for empathic political candidates to address this need by reassuring that some needs of the populist class will be met, whenever possible. It is important to describe how some needs can be accomplished in a realistic, believable manner, thereby empowering them. People in this group feel the emotion from the populist candidate quite readily and it can easily grow. It is important that it be genuine emotion and empathy based on an actual lapse of policy in existence, and a recommended way to correct this in a feasible way. It is often improbable that populist politicians will be able to meet all the emotional and social needs of the population, and this needs to be communicated, lest the population turn on the candidate once elected, should they fail to deliver. It is better to describe why some needs are unable to be met, in an actual, believable manner.

This inner emotional reward experience also has a strong physiological basis. It triggers the common reward pathway in the human brain, which is composed of both central nervous system structures and endogenous neurotransmitters such as dopamine communicating between these structures. “Dopamine biases memory towards events that are of motivational significance” to the individual and is “an essential element in the brain reward system.”^[2] This fuels the drive for survival, as the Institute for Behavioral Genetics in Colorado wrote that this ”reward pathway evolved to promote activities that are essential to the survival of the human race.”^[3] 

The media picks up the needs of the populist class, sensing that it needs power. Their coverage produces the emotional reactions being spread through emotional contagion, as the message and the accompanying emotion spreads among the populace, in turn producing a strong effect where logic and reason are unfortunately easily abandoned in favor of the emotional experience embedded in the pursuit of power. This can be a rewarding experience for the powerless individual who may now feel understood and reassured. But this may be a detriment, since logic, reason and objectivity may not be maintained to continue the reassurance in the eyes of the betrodden.   

Populist movements can be successful if there is space for the necessary cognitive attributes otherwise without these there is a good chance that they will fail, leaving the vulnerable citizens who hoped for change lacking. Understanding the source of populism’s emotional roots may allow it to have those emotional needs met while at the same time allowing the leaders to use the necessary cognitive skills and empathy skills to get the needs at least partially met, if not totally. Strong, wise, empathic leaders who possess good cognitive skills with good cognitive empathy, good judgment, and the ability to express emotions openly and constructively, in harmony with their cognitive skills, are likely to succeed leading populist movements, not just as a leader but in helping the community they serve overcome suppression. But when leaders use purely emotional methods to lead, without psychological awareness, it is prone to failure, because emotions don’t think.

The drive for survival is one of the strongest energies available to human beings. When it is strengthened by the impact of emotional and social contagion, it may become so strong that it influences the defining spirit or mood of the times. This seems to be the case during a time of turmoil. The populism that affected the world from 2015 and into the following years, into the 2020s, as seen particularly in the U.S. and the U.K., seemed to reflect the rise of these psychological needs being met by a powerful leader in a socio-political setting. However, the constant state of dysfunction in both the U.K. and the U.S. in conjunction with their relatively short tenure suggested that these leaders used populism unethically and ineffectively and that sadly, the populace’s emotional needs were not met satisfactorily, if at all.   

For example, some people may see a black or indigenous person jogging through a neighborhood and think that they are a criminal just because of their skin color, not realizing that they are a lawyer and are just exercising in their spare time. For racist people or those inclined to racism, in this situation, the fear of criminals and the need to feel powerful in a perceived dangerous situation they perceive involves criminals likely dominates their judgment. They may default to quick, fast thinking, along the lines that the black or indigenous person is a criminal because of stereotypes and how the mind is affected when in emotional thinking. When there is no effort in thinking, as there is not in fast, emotional thinking, the first thought to occur is often a stereotyped thought. It takes no time to pop into the person’s mind, so the black or indigenous person jogging in the neighborhood will prompt the observer who, being a racist, will have a spontaneous thought related to the person’s color and, incorrect as it is, perceived danger pops right into the person’s mind. Since it takes more time to think, “what else could it be, what other explanation could there be for this black (or indigenous) man jogging in my neighborhood’’, and then to come up with more possibilities, because of rigid, stereotyped thinking styles, they don’t take the extra time to think this way, and so the thought occurs that he (or she) must be a criminal. They default to the first possibility since it takes more time and effort for the person with stereotyped thinking to realize that black people can be lawyers, doctors, and journalists. They are very unlikely to do this or to challenge their stereotyped thinking since subconsciously they value the way they think, and the style they use to think. The way to challenge stereotyped thinking, if a person wants to change their type of thinking, is to question their own thought, since quick automatic thoughts are often distorted or even incorrect, like this and realize that some black or indigenous people can be and are professionals and that some white people can be and are criminals. But those are beyond the stereotype so they don’t pop up when the person uses fast, emotional thinking, in fear, since the black color equates with danger in the racist’s mind, a thought which is consistent with the fear they already may feel, and which brings up more simple messages, usually of fear and hate.  

With simple messages and quick feelings, it is easy for feelings and emotions to ramp up the message that the populist carries. During a populist movement, people get excited and get worked up with a cause and with the emotional feeling that drives them, and this makes the situation ripe for emotional contagion to occur.  With emotional contagion there is not much good thinking; such people base their decisions on emotions and easily, almost automatically accept feelings and emotions from others. This makes them think their cause is legitimate, as they get approval from others, which raises their positive emotions even more. They absorb emotions from others without scrutiny because it feels good to have someone else verify their feelings. So they don’t check the credibility or believability of the other person. Feelings and opinions are then exchanged easily, flowing between people, as the emotions involved can be contagious. This makes them more prone to being absorbed. They are prone to miss something in this atmosphere, for example, situations where their ideas may not apply but they accept them anyway. Crowds may gather as people seek commiseration from others who agree and see things the same way. This reinforces the feeling. But this is a selective choice, as people with opposing facts are ignored because they don’t provide the rewarding emotional feeling they are seeking.   

Perspectives are crucial when understanding a situation under focus, or a person being studied. A person looks very tall if you are a short 5-foot adult looking up at a 6’10” basketball player but that player would look very small from above if we were viewing them from a helicopter. We may know this as a fact when we are engaged in slow, reasoned thinking, but not realize it for a quick moment when we are surprised at seeing a very tall 6’10” basketball player up close. There are many examples in which there is a difference between what we know as a fact and what we think for a few seconds while dealing with that fact in real life in ongoing life situations. An oddly shaped or oddly dressed person will always catch our eye even though we know they exist. The Von Restorff effect, also known as the “isolation effect”, predicts that when multiple homogeneous stimuli are presented, the stimulus that differs from the rest is more likely to be remembered, just because it is different, so we notice it more easily.[4] This all illustrates the importance of perspectives, and emotional thinking does not consider perspectives. It just quickly endorses what seems immediately appealing when what is needed is a thorough appraisal, even by individual voters. 

We need to understand people who protest against vaccine mandates and other controversial issues, such as abortions and guns. Understanding doesn’t mean agreeing with them. It means figuring out what makes them tick. Many of them may find simple messages to be emotionally satisfying, especially if they feel relatively powerless and shortchanged in life in other ways.  If they are powerless and shortchanged, which many indeed are, that needs to change at many levels, economic, sociological and psychological. But we can’t wait for the change to happen. It may not happen the way we want. It rarely does.

Many such people seem unable to see the complexity, possibly because of some cognitive limitations that are not their fault. Otherwise, more complex messages, for which slow, reasoned thinking is required, are not emotionally satisfying for many powerless individuals. As a result, most of them can’t carry the message needed to totally understand the situation surrounding the vaccine mandate and the freedom protesters, abortion and other issues. These are complex situations requiring thinking from various perspectives to understand the full complexities involved and to arrive at effective decisions. Complex thinking requires recall of knowledge, perspectives and judgments as to which aspects of knowledge are relevant to a task at hand, and which are not. These are tasks of the mind. But many people like simple messages, easy to understand, because they carry emotions. Emotions are appealing to many, especially those who have felt ignored, misunderstood or underappreciated. Complexity, and logical thinking, although necessary to capture the essence of the various details of a situation, and weigh one against the other, require the mind to focus, remember, calculate and decide on which parts are salient. In short, to think, not to feel. Thinking is not drama, not emotional, and not appealing to people who like simple messages and emotion, so is easily dismissed. This is particularly so for those people who don’t put out the required mental energy to think through an issue, of which there are many in these times of clickbait. They prefer cognitive ease, which involves endorsing quick emotional thinking instead.  

Populist politicians appear to prefer the fast system with simple messages which induce emotion which is rewarding for them and their followers.  Many populist politicians appear to accept conspiracy theories as fact, as they appear to them to involve issues based on emotions, perhaps fear or enjoyment. It can feel exhilarating to overcome a fearful emotion, and conspiracy theories allow that since they often involve ways of combatting seemingly insurmountable problems.

For example, some people have been suspicious of the World Economic Forum, although the WEF has held an annual summit for over 50 years involving government and business leaders. This is probably because some people claim that the WEF controls governments in the Great Reset Conspiracy, by secretly using the coronavirus pandemic to improve capitalism and enforce radical social change through environmental initiatives[5]^,[6]. It has been criticized for using the pandemic to implement a risky experiment and a petition to stop it gained 80,000 signatures in less than 72 hours. A conspiracy theory has spread in response, claiming it will be used to bring in socioeconomic and environmental changes and a supposed New World Order.[7]  This New World Order seems to represent an easy way of combatting a previously thought of insurmountable barrier. It can seem so easy that it is comforting to accept it as is. That is an attractive, appealing possibility, so much so that a lot of people sign up since it is so comforting.  So, some politicians want to end the associations that governments have had with the WEF. This sounds like such a simple, appealing platform for those who may distrust large conferences that many diplomats attend. They are likely to be perceived as rich capitalists with large expense accounts who get to relax free in resorts while, possibly in the minds of the cynics, getting drunk, while secretly plotting to control governments to instill a new world order to make themselves richer, while the protesters need to drive large trucks for many miles in cramped spaces over many days for small salaries. It easily builds grudges and resentments which are all emotional, whether they are true or not.

This is a result of the contagious emotions of suspicion, cynicism and pessimism which are rampant. The public slid gradually down the slippery slope of these emotions, as the emotions became contagious over the decades, taking people downhill gradually so that they did not necessarily notice it or become alarmed by it consciously. It was largely unbeknownst to everyday Americans. People are not usually aware of slow downhill creep. But only 20% of Americans say now that they trust the government to do “the right thing”, as opposed to 75% many decades ago, before Vietnam and Watergate.[8] People just let the emotions go downhill rather than take them as a warning that there was a problem in government transparency, regardless of the political party, as both Democrats and Republican-led governments in the 60s and 70s experienced trust in government to do the right thing go downhill.

Emotions are valuable since they can give us subconscious warnings about poorly defined issues, as the word ”mandate” seemed to do. Although emotions don’t think, they can lead us into important areas that are otherwise ignored. Emotions are smart because they give us a whiff, providing the sniff test that often works. When people sense an issue from someone else without facts, they call it the sniff test, or ESP, although it is the other people’s emotions that are picked up moving about related to an  unspoken issue through emotional contagion. Emotions rub off on us from nearby people. Once this emotional type of warning alerts us, it takes thought and sound judgment to appraise it, in order to assess whether its message is logical. For example a phobic person may be anxious of animals and may be anxious around a cat, and we could pick up their anxiety through emotional contagion but then we realize it isn’t logical to be afraid of an ordinary household cat. It is a false alarm. 

Both positive and negative emotions have important impacts on our thoughts. Research about emotions and judgment indicates that information “conveyed by affect” or emotion is crucial, especially if the source of the affect is vague or uncertain.^[9] When something is conveyed, it has to be received or caught by another party. Emotion carries information, although it is simple and straightforward. It is crucial for good judgment. Emotion influences how people process information and make decisions. We may know this as a fact, but we often don‘t recognize it as it happens. It makes sense then that the opposite could be true: that the power and even the existence of mild to moderate negative emotional contagion is unrecognized as it happens at the moment. When negative toxic emotions spread, they affect the vulnerable.

Lisa Barrett says that “affective realism, the phenomenon that you experience what you believe,” gives us “body-[budgeting] predictions laden with affect, not logic or reason, [that are] the main drivers of [our] experience and behavior.”^[10] She says when you hear some news that you immediately believe, that is affective realism. In other words, it feels real because of the effect of emotion, also called affect. It keeps you believing something even when the evidence makes it highly doubtful. Simple messages provided by emotion can give a label to something, prompting you to automatically move to where the label points you, probably because it feels good. Affective realism is one of the serious problems causing the emotional turmoil of our times and seems to occur when toxic emotions infect our thinking.[11]

Some populist politicians get popular by following their own instincts and following the emotion they sense through emotional contagion. Many people are good at it but they do not often realize what they are sensing.  It is often the emotion, the anger, cynicism, distrust and suspicion in the populace. By stirring this emotion up very well in the “mixmaster”, and communicating it to his followers with some empathy, the populist politician can connect with the community.

Populist politics are often extremists, either extreme right or left wing. Centre politics involves rational, slow thinking because it takes time to think things through and converse with others, to study, ponder and reflect, not make impulsive emotional judgments which pander to those who believe in conspiracy theories. It is crucial for a leader to be able to actually engage in effective, intelligent slow thinking, to reflect and make decisions without emotions interfering.

When we talk about emotions, we are talking about the subconscious implicit emotion that all of us have, for example, when we feel good about a position we are taking or when we are concerned about a novel undertaking. Some call it identity politics, but it is truly emotional, under the surface at the implicit emotion level. This is because the attachment to a position often involves attachment to and belonging to a group which provides emotional gratification and satisfaction through providing an identity for those who feel they need one. This may occur to help to overcome an insecurity or the feeling of an invisible but powerful emotion. Emotion consists of feelings, affect, motivation and energy, with some physiological correlates, at various levels of consciousness – conscious emotion, subconscious emotion and unconscious emotion. Affect and emotion can be implicit, invisible to the naked eye, and built into the words and ideas people have so that the words and ideas are driven by the internal implicit emotion that people have but which we do not see any overt evidence of.  This is what we are talking about when we talk about emotion in politics.  It is “affective realism.”

It is easy to see how conspiracy theories can be calming for people who correctly feel distressed about the loss of control occurring in society, especially under affective realism.  Situations and theories feel real. It can be tempting to believe them when they bring relief since relief brings positive affect which is reinforcing. That positive affect, or positive emotion, is scarce these days, as we don’t get a lot of good news, and scary emotions such as fear, anxiety, depression and worry continue to be spiked, with worry about inflation, nuclear war, corruption, and many controversial topics such as abortions, shooting, disease, access to hospitals and doctors also causing much strife these days. We are living in emotional times, and some politicians have latched onto it. 

If politicians don’t understand and realize that they have to recognize and connect with the psychological and emotional states of their citizens responsibly, democracy itself could be at risk, as the USA is now finding. Voters will then, as they already have in many cases, vote for the candidates who tap into the citizens’ unrest by promising them what they want, based on emotion, even if it may not be good policy for the country or democracy. Voters do not think in these turbulent times. They vote with their emotions. This is emotional voting. Elections are won by poetry, not policy. Poetry involves sentiment and other positive emotions provided by the candidate: rhythm, flow, likability, ease of movement, in people who are appealing and congenial. This sometimes involves mild drama, not too strong, but also needs to involve the authenticity and genuineness of the candidate. Candidates choose slogans, logos, typefaces and colors to deliver their appeal, because these involve implicit emotion and ease of cognitive processing and contribute to the poetry. Voters usually do not like to think and process complicated information. But they do vote for trust and honesty. Policy involves dry, boring logic, facts, data, graphs, and legal-sounding preferences with statistics showing which methods work. It is all dry and unexciting, although this policy may present information that has the right answer to the problems being discussed, moreso than poetry does. We need good policy in a candidate, but it is the poetry that is essential. The candidate that can deliver both effectively is often the best candidate.   

At this crucial time, voters need to remember that voting is not primarily an emotional task.  It is a responsible task involving thinking about the candidates and the parties, not voting on purely a hunch, and not voting against a person or party without considering the relative pros and cons of the opposing candidates, because if they do not turn out the way you wanted, you may be voting against them in the next election. 

[1] Kahneman, D. Thinking, Fast and Slow. 2011, Random House Canada.

[2] Arias-Carrion, O. et al. Dopaminergic reward system: a short integrative review. Int Arch Med. 2010; doi: 10.1186/1755-7682-3-24.

[3] Neuroanatomy and Physiology of the “Brain Reward System” in Substance Abuse.  Institute of Behavioral Genetics.  University of Colorado.  http://ibg.colorado.edu/cadd1/a_drug/essays/essay4.htm

[4] https://lawsofux.com/von-restorff-effect/

[5] https://www.visionofhumanity.org/the-spread-of-the-great-reset-conspiracy-in-the-netherlands/

[6] https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Great+Reset

[7] https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Great+Reset

[8] Pew Research Centre, Public Trust in Government: 1958-2022. June 6, 2022.

[9] Clore GL and Huntsinger JR. How emotions inform judgment and regulate thought. Trends Cogn Sci. 2007;11(9):393‐399. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2007.08.005

[10] Barrett, L. How Emotions Are Made: The Secret Life of the Brain. Mariner Books, 2017.

[11] Lisa Feldman Barrett, PhD, who was born in Toronto, is among the top one percent most cited scientists in the world for her revolutionary research in psychology and neuroscience. She is a University Distinguished Professor of Psychology at Northeastern University.