I work on reducing political contempt — and yet I have contempt for Trump. Is that a contradiction?

Polarization means there will be much contempt and anger. The question is what we do with those feelings.

This will be my last work on polarization for a while, due to my needing to spend time on other endeavors. If you’ve enjoyed my work and want to encourage me to do more in future, please leave a review on Amazon or Goodreads for the books of mine you’ve read, or leave a review on Apple Podcasts for my podcast.

When you’re outraged by and contemptuous of your political opponents, you probably won’t be motivated to work on reducing us-vs-them polarization. At the very least, you’ll have a hard time seeing how you could be part of such work.

With Trump in his second term, I know this is the case for many anti-Trump Americans. Many look at the depolarization-aimed work I and others do and have a response like, “That’s nice and all, but you should focus on beating the bad guys. A focus now on reducing political toxicity is naive; it can wait.”

And of course many Trump supporters have the same reaction: “We need to defeat the bad guys; that’s what matters now.”

But you can be outraged by and contemptuous of your political opponents (of whatever sort) and still work on bridge-building and reducing polarization. I know that because I myself have contempt and anger for Trump and his most gung-ho supporters — and I’ve spent years working on this problem.

That may be a surprising admission. You might think I’m being hypocritical — or perhaps just bad at this work. But I’m just being honest; I’m only human. And I think it’s vitally important to see how our anger and contempt and fear (at any political leader or group) can co-exist with efforts to reduce toxic polarization. Getting more people to see how that is not a contradiction is, I think, what will help shift the societal tides of polarization. That is a major way we build a big-tent approach to depolarization: a philosophy that is robust and not fragile. (And that’s what I’ve tried to do in my books and articles.)

Because, let’s face it: many of us are angry. That is, after all, what toxic polarization does to us, with its various feedback cycles. No matter which “side” you think is crazier and more dangerous, you can’t deny that many of us, on both “sides,” have a lot of contempt and fear these days. And those emotions in turn lead to more support for antagonistic team-based approaches — and leaders who take them. That is just the state of things; we should be mature and acknowledge that that’s where we are.

And many of us, on both “sides,” have anger that can be rationally understood; there are many real and defensible sources for our concerns. Antagonistic, team-based approaches, on both “sides,” provide evidence to us for why our contempt and anger are justified.

To reduce toxic polarization in America, we need to show angry Americans how you can be outraged and still be a part of reducing political toxicity.

We also need more people to have empathy and understanding for other people’s anger: to not immediately jump to hate and blame when we hear opposing views and opposing narratives. We need to be mature in facing the fact that many of us will be angry at and contemptuous of each other. Often, the views and frustrations on the “other side” are much more rational and understandable than we may think (understanding each others’ stances has also been a big part of my focus).

If you have immense anger at one “side” or the other — whether you voted for Trump or hate him — I hope you read this piece and consider how it might apply to your anger.

And if you’re a Trump voter, I especially hope you read this. I hope you see it as worthwhile to try to understand the sources of my anger — just as I think it’s a good thing to try to understand the sources of your anger.

A note about my contempt

When I say I have contempt for Trump and his most gung-ho supporters, I mean I often feel immensely angry toward and morally judgmental towards them. I’ll admit that I’m frequently disgusted by them. I think they have made major moral mistakes in embracing highly us-vs-them, toxic, and antagonistic ways of thinking and acting.

Trump is the epitome of a psychologically polarized leader: even minor disagreements seem to be an opportunity for him to insult the “other side” — to turn disagreement into a grand good-versus-evil, with-us-or-against-us war. (I thought about linking to some examples but is that really necessary at this point?) Trump’s inability to accept the 2020 election, and his instinct to stoke election disbelief, is par for the course for a highly polarized, us-vs-them-mindset leader.

I should also clarify that I don’t feel contempt for all Trump voters. I’ve disagreed with enough liberal/Democrat stances and approaches to understand how rational, compassionate Americans voted for Trump simply because they thought that was a better choice than the alternative — and how they could even do that even while actively disliking many aspects of his personality. I also understand that many voters are one-issue or several-issue voters, and that these people might vote for Trump regardless of how they feel about him.

I’m talking here about the most enthusiastic Trump supporters: the ones who can hear Trump say insulting, demeaning, clearly conflict-amplifying things and think “That’s great; I like that!” I’m disgusted by Trump supporters who dedicate a lot of time insulting and demeaning and mocking the entire “other side” — and this includes highly polarized people who Trump has granted power to; people like Elon Musk, Dan Bongino, Kash Patel, and many others, whose main qualification in Trump’s eyes seems to be their commitment to antagonistic approaches.

I’m disgusted by the childish and often just-plain-creepy behavior that such toxicity leads to: a desire to trigger and “own” one’s opponents — the reflexive instincts to always defend one’s team and denigrate the other team, often before details about a new event are even known.

The reason I am frequently disgusted by these people can be summarized simply: We know they’d be disgusted and outraged if a Democratic leader spoke and acted in the insulting, deeply contemptuous, and conflict-amplifying ways that Trump so often does. And they would be entirely right to be disgusted!

Trump and his most gung-ho supporters are, in a word, hypocritical; they embrace approaches that would obviously make them apoplectic if their opponents took them. Toxic conflict inevitably leads to more people justifying and gleefully embracing hypocrisy. (Robert Talisse’s book Sustaining Democracy has a good section on why it’s easy for us to not see our own hypocrisy.)

Put another way: I don’t think you can be a highly enthusiastic supporter of Trump AND want to reduce us-vs-them contempt in America. (Do you think I’m wrong about that? I’d love to hear your thoughts if you disagree.)

And, if it matters: I’ve also felt contempt for and been deeply judgmental of various liberal/Democrat leaders, activists, and citizens, based on the highly insulting, maximally pessimistic ways in which they speak about their opponents and their refusal to see or admit that there can be a lot of team-based thinking on “their side.” I wrote a whole book aimed at helping liberals see how contemptuous approaches on “their side” helped amplify our divides, and even helped create more support for highly antagonistic opponents, like Trump. I devoted an episode of my podcast to trying to persuade anti-Trump people why they should have cognitive empathy for Trump and for his supporters, and their sources of anger. This is just to say that I’m disappointed in a lot of people.

It might also be worth clarifying that my disappointment with Trump and other Republicans is mostly not about their political stances (even as it’s true that intense animosity inevitably leads to more extreme and unreasonable positions). For some issues, I agree more with your average Republican than I do with your average Democrat. I am judgmental of how Trump and gung-ho Trump supporters engage with their opponents. (And that’s an important point about depolarization work: it’s important to separate what we disagree about from how we disagree, as we are largely suffering from problems with how we disagree.)

The other side’s antagonism can justify our antagonism

If you’re a Trump voter and your response to this is, “But many Democrats/liberals have spoken and acted in deeply contemptuous, antagonistic ways; Trump and Republicans are just fighting back,” I think that reaction means that you probably are not a gung-ho Trump supporter. If you’re able to see that antagonistic approaches are bad and unhelpful, no matter who takes them, then by definition you aren’t that enthusiastic about a key aspect of Trump.

In fact, I think most Trump voters wish Trump were less antagonistic and toxic: I have heard that sentiment from many Trump voters — including some highly enthusiastic supporters. I remember one fairly gung-ho Trump supporter telling me he thought Trump’s personality was like “gasoline on the fire” of our divides.

Anti-Trump people may wonder: but how can Trump voters be both enthusiastic about Trump and also critical of him? The answer lies in understanding the nature of toxic conflict: most people are largely fighting against the“other side,” not for “their side.” And for some, Trump represents a pushback against liberal/Democrat leaders, activists, and everyday citizens who they see as treating them with great antagonism and unfairness. Anti-Trump people should be curious about and empathetic to those views (if you are curious, maybe check out my book How Contempt Destroys Democracy).

And to clarify even further: my admitting I feel contempt doesn’t mean I think contempt is a worthwhile or logical emotion. Logically, I know it makes no sense and does no good. I’m someone who doubts free will exists, which means I’m someone who doesn’t see much point in righteous moral judgment. I’m just being honest about the emotions I feel. Yes, I work on depolarization and, I guess in some ideal world, I would have more of a Zen Buddhist calm and have zero feelings of contempt and moral disgust. But that’s not the case; I’m only human. And I’m a human living during deeply polarized times — as you are — and it’s only natural that we’ll have scorn for some people, of one sort or another.

We can be angry and still have empathy for our opponents’ anger

If Trump supporters/voters genuinely want to reduce toxic polarization (and, to be sure, some people, on both “sides,” have zero interest in that), they must try to understand what bothers anti-Trump Americans. I think it should be very easy for you to see what bothers people — even as you disagree about issues and priorities. If you refuse to acknowledge other people’s frustrations as making some sense, and if your instinct is to respond with something like, “You’re crazy to complain about Trump; you’re the toxic one for your criticisms; you have Trump Derangement Syndrome,” or similar, you should be brave enough to consider that that makes you a contributor to our toxicity problem — just as are liberal/progressive activists who speak as if there is no contribution to toxic polarization from “their side.”

I think our toxic conflict causes a lot of cognitive dissonance. I think there are many people who voted for Trump in 2016 simply because he was the Republican candidate, but as time went on, and his contemptuous, high-conflict traits became more apparent, they sought to defend their choice as a “normal” one, one that couldn’t be faulted — even as it might have never been a choice they would have been faced with or had to make in a less polarized time. There was an internal and external pressure to want to see Trump as a normal president, even as Trump’s way of engaging with opponents clearly makes him abnormal. (And sorry, I know I’m doing this a lot, but I see this dynamic for liberal-associated stances, also; there are many liberals/Democrats who embrace new liberal-associated stances as “normal” that they otherwise wouldn’t, simply because those things are associated with “the good guys.” The emotions that result from conflict easily shift our stances without us being aware of it.)

Our previous decisions and public proclamations can lead to a cascading series of events, where our views and allegiances become more and more entrenched. Simply put: we can feel an internal and external pressure to normalize our own actions and behaviors, and the behaviors of people on “our team.” And, as a conflict intensifies and becomes more toxic, this instinct can make us behave in irrational ways: e.g., speaking as if “our side has done nothing wrong and has nothing to answer for.”

I’ve seen a lot of behavior on “the right”¹ that I see as a result of these team-based psychological pressures. I’ve seen a lot of simply narcissistic behavior, where people lash out and refuse to do any self- or in-group examination. (More polarization leads to more narcissistic behaviors — which in turn ramps up anger on the “other side,” and so on.) I’ve seen this from Trump-supporting people I personally know; a new willingness and a desire to lash out and insult and villify, and refuse to try to see others’ views. (And, again, I see this on “the left”¹ also; I’ve lost friends and strained relationships due to that dynamic.)

I’ve even seen this dynamic in the depolarization/bridge-building space. I once attended a Braver Angels conference where a gung-ho Trump supporter insulted me and others who attempted to calmly tell him the rational reasons for our serious concerns about Trump: he just kept emotionally repeating statements like, “You’re blinded by hate!” and so on, refusing to engage in a calm discussion. To make a comparison: I would try, and I have tried, to understand the frustrations and views of people who have voted for Trump; that person seemed unwilling to examine other people’s views and frustrations. I see this as a type of narcissism; and I think toxic conflict makes more of us behave in narcissistic, low-empathy ways. (The fact that such reactions are present even amongst people who see themselves as trying to build bridges and reduce toxicity highlights the difficulty of this work!)

There will be contempt

We should be mature and recognize that America is emotionally polarized. There will be anger. There will be contempt. There will even sometimes be blood. These things are certainties. Recognizing this truth is the first step of us approaching the problem maturely. We must try to see the problem from a birds’ eye view — and not have our view of the true nature of the problem occluded by the hills and valleys of the various outrages and offenses of the day. Seeing the maze of toxic conflict clearly is the first step in escaping.

The goal isn’t to eliminate our anger and contempt; that’s not feasible. The goal is to have those feelings and still, somehow, engage in ways that work to lower societal contempt — or, at the very least, don’t unnecessarily amplify us-vs-them contempt. The goal is to see how, when we aren’t careful, when we let our anger and contempt rule our emotions and approaches, we inevitably act in ways that amplify the conflict — and even help our most polarized enemies.

If you dislike Trump (or any prominent leader you see as highly toxic), I think it’s important to view the power attained by such people as the result of our toxic polarization, not as the cause. This is not to say that polarized, polarizing leaders don’t contribute to our divides (they do; it’s a self-reinforcing cycle), but it’s to argue for seeing our conflict in a more true and helpful way. Broad support for more hostile, us-vs-them approaches, like those taken by Trump, doesn’t appear overnight; many surveys show how us-vs-them animosity and contempt have grown over the last few decades.

Even as I have anger toward Trump and his most enthusiastic supporters, I also see that how I and others express ourselves can either a) drum up more us-vs-them rage (leading to more support for the very people I’m angry at) OR b) reduce or avoid amplifying us-vs-them rage. Even as I have many negative feelings, I have choices about what to do with those feelings.

The many ways all of us, us millions of citizens, interact every day bubbles up to form the political culture. How we treat each other, in-person and online. What we allow our political allies to say about the “other side.” What we push back on, and what we don’t push back on. Us millions of citizens are the people who put the wind in the sails for either more polarized approaches, or less polarized approaches.

Tips for angry citizens who want to reduce anger

The simple fact is that many leaders and many activists, on both “sides,” make easily avoidable mistakes in communication. For example, it’s common to hear leaders and activists, on both sides, speak in ways that insult the entire “other side,” when they could instead focus their criticism on specific people.

For example, it’s common to hear anti-Trump leaders and activists speak about Trump supporters/voters being “in a cult,” or being motivated solely or largely by racism and/or authoritarianism. These are unforced errors, and hugely costly errors; they are gifts to Trump. (And I’d say the same to Trump voters: speaking in “they’re all the same” ways about “the left” aids your most polarized opponents.)

This group-aimed insult pattern is so prevalent, and so powerful in sparking us-vs-them outrage, that I think if you eliminated this pattern alone, we’d see a huge reduction in societal rage. Another way to put this: simply cutting down on the immense amount of ongoing contributions to toxicity would, in itself, lower our overall polarization. To make an analogy: maybe the “forest fire” of toxic polarization would die down substantially on its own if there weren’t so many people constantly lighting small fires all over the place.

There’s a lot more to say here (I have a whole section on this at the end of my books) but I’ll list a few more ideas for depolarizing approaches that activists can take:

Remember the “other side” is not a monolith

You should keep in mind that the “other side” is not a monolith. The out-group homogeneity effect means that we’ll often perceive the “other side” as all-the-same. This means anti-Trump people will be prone to imagining all Trump voters/supporters as the most enthusiastic, gung-ho types — even as we know that many Trump supporters don’t support his personality and approach, and are largely pushing back on liberal-associated stances. This also means that pro-Trump people see liberals/Democrats as being more extreme and contemptuous than they are — even as we know that many Democrat voters have a lot of nuance and variation on specific issues but are largely concerned with Trump’s antagonistic, aggressive personality and approaches.

Both sides will imagine the “other side” to be more hateful than they are. Both sides are largely focused on the threats and insults they see on the “other side,” not so much the positives of “their side.”

Try to speak respectfully; try to persuade

You should focus on trying to speak as respectfully as possible to opponents and focus as much as possible on persuading people who disagree.

A highly polarized society is one in which many people simply give up on persuasion. To try to persuade means thinking that your opponents are normal, thinking people who can be persuaded. The more polarized we grow, the fewer people actually believe their opponents can be persuaded. Also, when we’re angry, we may not even actually care about persuading people; we may mainly care about venting and signaling our alliegiences. And when we give up on persuasion, we amplify contempt and polarization.

When I interviewed group psychology researcher Matthew Hornsey for my podcast, he said the following:

That’s another thing I’ve had to let go of… I always thought that when people were arguing about ideas, they were trying to persuade the other group… It took me a while to realize that actually that’s not true either. Because if they actually thought they were trying to persuade the group, they’d do it differently. I think often what they’re doing is that they’re just enjoying the tribalism and they’re enjoying marinating in their own kind of virtuousness and they’re enjoying signaling into their own side their credentials as an in-group member.

We need more people to recognize the importance of trying to persuade others. The act of seeking to persuade others isn’t just about winning an argument. There is a meta-level benefit to it. When we try to persuade others, we show them our best ideas and best selves. Even when we fail to persuade, we may show them aspects of ourselves and our ideas that are more logical and understandable than they believed. This can lower their contempt and anger, even when they still disagree with us. In a very real sense, the toxicity we see around us is a result of many angry people simply giving up on trying to persuade; of many people embracing narcissistic views that “my view of things is obviously right; other people are bad and/or dumb.”

Leaders and activists who want to reduce polarization must try to speak in ways that keep in mind that the “other side” is more reasonable than they believe. They should aim their speech to those people who are more “in the middle” than they may instinctually think they are. They should avoid speaking as if the “other side” is some hateful, unreasonable monolith. And they should trust that those approaches are not only right — but may win them more support and votes than their instincts lead them to believe.

Learn more

If you liked this piece, and want to learn more:

• Read 8 Tips for activists who want to reduce polarization (this was one of my most popular recent pieces on Substack)

• Check out my books: they both include sections on practical, everyday approaches we can all take

¹ I put “the right” and “the left” in quotes because I think the idea of an overarching political spectrum is an illusion – and an illusion that unintentionally creates more animosity and polarization.