The Psychology of Political Worldviews - Understanding Our Clients' (and Our Own) Political Ideology

Presented to the Los Angeles County Psychological Association (LACPA) Philosophy for Psychotherapists Special Interest Group, on 8/03/2017

How to Talk with and Listen to Trump Followers

Introduction

Welcome and good morning! Our topic today is one that is not usually discussed in psychological meetings or LACPA Special Interest Groups and might be seen as outside of the purview of what psychotherapists concern themselves with or discuss - and that topic is: politics, or, the political ideologies that people have that determine their voting, their involvement, and their emotional reactions to what goes on in our political life and political system. And yet, I would suggest, politics and political worldviews are an important part of our lives, and - as the last year or year and a half have proven, a large part of the mental landscape of most of us, whether we are therapists or patients. Of corse, what has brought this topic to the fore has been the election and Presidency of a controversial political leader named Donald J. Trump.

Election night November 2016 and its unexpected results brought significant emotional reaction and upset for those who opposed him and who were frankly, shocked and astounded. My daughter and I exchanged texts, and I recall her words about 7 pm that evening - "What is happening !!???" - conveying the consternation and bewilderment of those of us who simply assumed that a reality TV star who played fast and loose with the truth, with no political experience or credentials and who who specialized in braggadocio and insult, could be elevated to the highest office of the land. A psychologist friend/colleague who confidently had predicted Trump's resounding defeat texted me that evening also to say: "I think I will need treatment for trauma! lol myself now! The election and its sequelae have brought continuing emotional distress and upheaval, and of course, a widening of the serious divisiveness and political polarization that has overtaken our political world. Relationships and marriages have been strained or even ended over the clash of political ideologies which the election and the Presidency of Trump embodies.

What I think will be helpful, as psychotherapists, is for us to make a serious attempt to understand political ideology and political polarization using our psychological understanding and knowledge. Intense emotion and interpersonal conflicts arising therefrom are after all our bread and butter; and the political realm has now intruded upon the cloistered session room to affect both our client's and ourselves as therapists.

Political Ideology and Worldviews

Has anyone a story or experience to share with us in this regard; how they themselves, their family, or their clients have been affected by our topic today?

What I'd like to explore and examine this morning are three questions: 1) What is political ideology and how does it function for an individual? 2) What insights can psychology and it's theories, whether Cog B, or Psychodynamic, existential, trauma-centered or mindfulness oriented, offer to better make sense of what happened and is happening now in our political life? And what links can we make between political extremism and psychopathology? 3) What social and cultural factors have come together to create the degree of ideologization and polarization we see today? Time limits us from examining this broader dimension of our topic.

Our central focus this morning will be to explore how political ideology affects our work as therapists and our identity and role as therapists. What happens when, if we as therapists pretty much dispise Mr. Trump, we find out that several of our clients actually voted for him and support his policies? This involves the question of counter-transference and if there's time I will share some of my experiences as a therapisr with my clients who fall into this category. I suspect we will run short of time to discuss the additional question of the public role of psychologists to enter into political debate, the so-called Goldwater Rule of the American Psychiatric Association, and the issue of Article 25 of the Constitution and how that might come into play if we find that we have on our hands a President who is mentally unfit to fulfill his duties.

One word about how "philosophy" pertains to our topic. If we define philosophy as the endeavor to examine and clarify our basic assumptions, think critically and ethically about what we do in any intellectual or professional field (I'm reminded of our last meeting) and to inquire into Kant's three questions: "what can I know, what should I do, and what can I hope for.) I hope you will agree that our Philosophy for Psychotherapists SIG is a good place to discuss the place of politics and political philosophies or worldviews within the field of psychotherapy broadly defined.

Let us now turn to our first area to explore together. What is a political ideology? How does a political ideology function within the psychological world of an individual? Ideology can be defined as a belief-system, a set of interconnected assumptions and propositions that purport to explain the world and guide us within it. 

Now I have a particular theory of ideology which primarily stems from two philosophers: Karl Jaspers, the German "existentialist", and Wilhelm Dilthey, the philosopher of worldviews and what is called "historicism" (the insight that every human cultural product is part of a larger and ongoing historical process). Jaspers, a psychiatrist turned philosopher, wrote a book in 1911 entitled The Psychology of Worldviews in which he tackled the subject of how it is that people tend to see things in so many different ways and have such divergent overall perspectives. Jaspers pointed out that worldviews are the inevitable ways that we take a shortcut to understand the totality of things by seeing them from a particular point of view. Some people are "rationalists" and like to see things through the lens of reason, others are "romanticists" who go with what their heart and intuition tell them, sometimes at the expense of reason. No one worldview is right or wrong; but Jaspers points out, they all function psychologically as frames or boxes or shells by which we simplify reality and give us the illusion of security and certainty. Ideologies are thus clung to as intellectual security blankets if you will, and while helping us to cope with a complex reality, also limit us and can function as barriers to truth rather than avenues to it. 

Dilthey's theory of worldviews was similar to Nietzsche's pespectivalism - no one has knows absolute truth - we all see from our perspective. We embrace worldviews because they give us the illusion of certainty. The protect us against the terror of finitude, and help us hide from the reality of flux and change and historical context by positing "metaphysical" truths or dogmas that are purportedly all explaining or even eternal. 

Ideology and Extremism

How does this apply to our topic? All of us eventually develop worldviews or ideologies. They are the scaffolding that allows us to construct a meaningful life. The psychological question is how something normal and even healthy can become abnormal, excessive, and pathological. When a person wholly embraces an all-encompassing ideology—when they are in the grip of that belief system—they tend to lose their humanity. A die-hard fanatic of Communist ideology, for example, may subordinate their entire existence to serving the cause. (David Horowitz, a promoter of ultra-right ideology today, was a “red diaper baby” whose parents submerged everything into their fanatic devotion to Communism. As a child growing up in New York, he was told he could not root for the Yankees over the Dodgers because the Yankees were the “capitalist” team.)

Another way to understand extremist political ideology is that it allows a person to avoid resolving their psychological issues by projecting them onto the political realm. A person with a weak or vulnerable sense of self may bolster their fragile self-organization by embracing an ideology that boosts their self-esteem—often at the expense of a despised other group. Racists who might otherwise feel worthless can, through their racist belief system, at least feel superior and proud of their “whiteness.” Anti-Semites can project onto “the Jews” their own unsavory impulses to cheat or get ahead. (See Jean-Paul Sartre’s Anti-Semite and Jew for a brilliant philosophical and psychological analysis of this.)

Psychological Concepts and Political Ideology

What are some psychological applications that help explain how political ideology can cease being “functional” and become “dysfunctional”? I’ve always wanted to write an op-ed piece detailing how, as Albert Ellis and Aaron Beck have taught us, people are prone to “cognitive distortions”—patterns of irrational (or, better said, unhelpful) thinking that make it harder to live harmoniously with others.

Some of the most common cognitive distortions employed in political discourse include:

• Catastrophizing: When things are not going well, concluding that it is an absolute disaster and that nothing can be done.

• All-or-Nothing Thinking: Believing that there must be a perfect solution to our problems and, lacking it, everything is hopeless and we cannot move forward.

Beck’s more complex model of the “cognitive triad” suggests that depression is rooted in mutually reinforcing negative beliefs about the self, the world, and the future. This framework could also be applied to political beliefs or “core schemas.” Extremist ideologues freely engage in distorted thinking and paranoia, as the complexities of social issues are crammed into the rigid categories of dogma, generating either despondency or rage, paralysis or dysfunctional behavior.

Psychoanalysis has much to offer here as well. Understanding why a person clings to an extremist ideology can involve examining their developmental history, unresolved inner conflicts, or “unconscious organizing principles” that operate automatically. These structures can be changed when brought to consciousness and critically examined.

Before we go further (and I want to hear how all of this applies to your experience and work.

I’d like now to turn to the third of our questions: What social and cultural factors have contributed to the increasing prevalence of ideology and divisive polarization in this country?

Hochschild, Vance, and Haidt on Political Divides

Arlie Hochschild’s 2016 book, Strangers in Their Own Land, is a brilliant attempt to research the roots of ultra-right political ideology from an empathic and psychological (social psychology) viewpoint. She embedded herself in Northern Louisiana, getting to know local Tea Party leaders, making friends, and seriously seeking to understand their belief systems.

What struck Hochschild—beyond how kind these people were—was how their environment (the Louisiana bayou country) was being devastated by toxic pollution. The energy and chemical industries had heavily invested in the area; now the fish were dying, and workers were developing cancer. Yet despite what Hochschild saw as an obvious conclusion—that governmental regulation was needed—the people she studied firmly believed that the government was bad, corrupt, and of no help. Their ideology told them that the jobs these industries provided were necessary, and their Christian fundamentalist beliefs assured them that any suffering would be rewarded in the afterlife. As one man put it: “In heaven, they say there are beautiful trees.”

Hochschild found that these people organized their lives around a “deep story”—a narrative that helps them make sense of their identity. This same pattern appears in explanations for Trump’s popularity among Rust Belt and coal-mining communities: hardworking, family-oriented, churchgoing people who feel left behind and disrespected by urban liberal elites.

J.D. Vance’s Hillbilly Elegy offers a different but complementary perspective. His poignant autobiography details his upbringing in Kentucky and Ohio amid economic decline, drug addiction, family breakdown, and pervasive despair. Despite these obstacles, Vance succeeded—thanks to his strong-willed grandmother and a personal resilience that carried him through the Marines and Yale Law School. He argues that the people he grew up with lost faith in the system, believing it was rigged against them. Their cynicism and anger fueled Trump’s rise, as they saw him as a champion of the working-class “non-elite.” (*Note: this talk was given before Pence’s flip-flop to becoming pro Trump. The book remains well worth reading.)

Jonathan Haidt’s The Righteous Mind takes a social-psychological approach, explaining political divisions through what he calls “moral taste buds”:

1. Care/Harm

2. Fairness/Cheating

3. Loyalty/Betrayal

4. Authority/Subversion

5. Sanctity/Disgust

Haidt argues that progressives prioritize Care and Fairness, whereas conservatives also emphasize Loyalty, Authority, and Sanctity. This divergence explains why liberals and conservatives often fail to understand each other. Haidt, originally a liberal, now advocates for moral humility and open-mindedness, warning against self-righteousness.

Yet, Haidt’s approach has its weaknesses—particularly its reluctance to evaluate competing values. Should Sanctity/Disgust hold the same weight as Care/Harm? This recalls Lawrence Kohlberg’s stages of moral development, which emphasize ethical reasoning over rigid rules.

Ultimately, my argument—building on Haidt—is that extremism in ideology arises when one moral value becomes hypertrophied. For example, Communists absolutize equality, sacrificing freedom, while libertarians absolutize individual liberty, neglecting social cohesion. A functional political system requires both left and right, just as a bird needs both wings to fly.

A psychotherapist who has ideological leanings make them anti-Trump will have difficulties working with a pro-Trump patient. One workaround would be simply to avoid a topic of politics. But I would suggest this. refrain from judging your patient. Seek above all to understand them. Be curious. their ultaconservative ideology or Trump followership probably shows up their sense of self. As and if therapy progresses, your patient will gradually be less likely to be drawn to an authoritarian leader or a dogmatic political dogma, and increasinly more likely to be content with being simply human.

Conclusion

Understanding political ideology through psychology -especially contemporary relational intersubjective pdychoanalysis - can help bridge divides, temper ideological fervor, and foster dialogue. If we wish to heal political polarization, fostering curiosity, compassion, and critical thinking is essential.