Emotions in politics bring nothing but destruction, completely destroying the political process, with voters relying on their prehistoric instincts rather than rationally analyzing, being devoid of cognitive biases, fallacies, and formal fallacies. They don’t want to work with information, being completely devoid of emotions, with the precision of a scientist where the rational core wins.
People’s stupidity helped to vote (if my example is the US) awful candidates who were nothing but puppets of the Big Banks, super-rich families, and I hope not – some secretive societies. Candidates (if we speak from a common morality standpoint) who are grossly immoral. All because the marketing experts did their job well.
Evolutionary purposes of emotions connected with politics
Fear evolved to help humans avoid threats. It ensured survival in dangerous environments. Politicians exploit this emotion today. They exaggerate risks like terrorism or immigration. Fear leads voters to prioritize security over other needs. It pushes people toward authoritarian leaders. This undermines balanced decision-making.
Anger motivated early humans to fight injustice. It helped them defend resources and assert dominance. In politics, it fuels polarization and conflict. Leaders use anger to rally supporters against opponents. This blocks compromise and fosters division. Emotional outrage overshadows rational thought. Reactionary decisions often follow.
Loyalty kept tribes united in the past. It strengthened cooperation and mutual trust. In modern politics, it creates blind allegiance. People defend their party over facts or ethics. Partisan loyalty deepens divides and hinders progress. Leaders escape accountability due to loyal followers.
Empathy encouraged early humans to care for kin. It built strong social bonds in small groups. Today, empathy often misguides political focus. Emotional appeals favor visible issues over systemic ones. Selective compassion ignores broader priorities. Empathy for one group fuels hostility toward others.
Humans evolved to prefer in-groups over out-groups. This ensured safety and resource sharing within tribes. Modern politics amplifies these biases. Xenophobia and exclusionary policies rise from this instinct. Nationalism blocks global cooperation on shared problems. Divisions grow deeper in diverse societies.
Status-seeking gave early humans access to resources and mates. It improved survival and reproductive success. Now, it distorts political choice. Charisma and image often outweigh competence. Leaders prioritize public approval over substantive action. Rivalries escalate, leading to reckless behavior.
Ideologies are nothing but an evolutionary product
Ideologies are deeply rooted in human evolution. They reflect strategies that ensured group survival and cohesion. Early humans lived in small, interdependent groups. Cooperation and shared beliefs were essential for survival. These beliefs unified the group and built trust among its members. Over time, ideologies became more structured. They justified rules, hierarchies, and the division of labor. Groups with strong, unifying ideas outperformed and outlasted those without them. Natural selection favored groups that could work together under shared principles. As societies grew, ideologies adapted. They shifted to fit new challenges and environments. Human brains are wired to seek patterns and meaning. This tendency drives the creation of belief systems. Ideologies meet psychological and social needs. They give purpose, identity, and a framework for action, are not fixed and evolve as human societies and circumstances change. This dynamic nature keeps them relevant and powerful over time.
All of this is exploited by emotions in politics: authoritarianism, social democracy, imperialism, colonialism, egalitarianism, syndicalism, mutualism, absolutism, feudalism, traditionalism, globalism, isolationism, pacifism, militarism, chauvinism, pluralism, constructivism, existentialism, individualism, collectivism, cosmopolitanism, regionalism, tribalism, corporatism, communitarianism, idealism, postmodernism, neoliberalism, neoconservatism, interventionism, protectionism, ethnonationalism, anti-globalism.
Emotions in politics with politicians behind lusting for mere power
Emotions in politics are central to how voters think and act. People do not process political information purely logically. Instead, they rely on feelings to interpret events, judge leaders, and make decisions. Politicians understand this and shape their messages to evoke specific emotional responses.
Fear makes voters seek safety. When politicians highlight threats, such as terrorism or crime, they push people toward leaders who promise stability and control. Anger, on the other hand, motivates action. Angry voters are more likely to reject incumbents, protest, or demand change. Campaigns use anger to rally opposition and frame opponents as harmful or corrupt.
Hope encourages optimism. Messages that focus on a better future inspire voters to believe in progress and possibility. Candidates like Obama used hope to build trust and momentum. Empathy shifts opinions on issues like poverty, immigration, or healthcare. Personal stories of struggle or suffering connect with voters emotionally, making them more likely to support policies addressing these problems.
Disgust, sadness and bipartisanship
Disgust creates rejection. Scandals or unethical behavior provoke moral outrage, damaging reputations and trust. Politicians often highlight their opponent’s flaws to trigger this reaction. Pride builds group identity. Nationalism, cultural symbols, and achievements inspire loyalty. Leaders appeal to pride by linking their campaigns to shared values or history.
Sadness encourages reflection. It makes people consider losses or injustices and support change. Tragedies, such as natural disasters or shootings, often lead to emotional appeals for reform. Bipartisanship also influences voter emotions. When leaders from opposing sides collaborate, it fosters trust and reduces cynicism. This emotional signal reassures voters that solutions are possible beyond division.
Ideologies as deceiving elements
Even subtle emotional signals matter. A candidate’s smile, tone, or gestures can create warmth and likability, swaying undecided voters. Emotions drive politics. They shape how voters perceive issues and decide who to support. Politicians rely on this because feelings often override logic. Voters act not just based on what they know but on how they feel.
Politicians misuse ideologies, which evolved as tools for group dynamics, by manipulating emotions. Ideologies did not always unify groups; they also reflected internal disagreements. Even in early human societies, members held different views on survival strategies. Some supported traditional methods, while others pushed for change or innovation. These ideological divides allowed groups to test multiple approaches, adapting better to challenges. This diversity of thought was an evolutionary advantage, ensuring flexibility and resilience.
Politicians today exploit this natural tendency for ideological conflict. They amplify emotional divides, turning disagreements into loyalty battles.
Bipartisanship intensifies these instincts, framing opposing ideologies as threats to survival. By triggering primal responses, politicians override rationality. What evolved to promote adaptive diversity now deepens division, serving political ambitions instead of societal progress.
Politicians, however, use all of these primitive instincts to get into power, while people do not have any hint.
Marketing? Why not political marketing?
Political marketing divides voters into segments to tailor messages and strategies. Each segment reflects different demographics, interests, and priorities, allowing campaigns to address specific needs and emotions effectively. Marketing experts rely on data analysis, targeting tools, and metrics to refine their approach.
Segmentation starts with demographics. Campaigns analyze age, gender, income, education, ethnicity, and geography. For example, younger voters might receive messages about climate change, while older voters may see content focused on healthcare or pensions. Geographic data identifies regional issues, tailoring strategies for urban, suburban, or rural areas.
Psychographic segmentation adds depth by focusing on values, beliefs, and lifestyles. Marketing teams analyze voter attitudes, such as openness to change, conservatism, or progressivism. Emotional triggers vary across segments. Fear-based ads might work for security-conscious voters, while hope appeals resonate with optimistic, forward-thinking groups.
Behavioral segmentation examines actions like voting history, political donations, or social media engagement. This identifies “core voters,” swing voters, and those unlikely to vote. Swing voters receive targeted persuasion campaigns, while core voters are motivated through reinforcement strategies. Non-voters may be reached with emotional appeals tied to civic duty or specific issues.
Digital platforms allow hyper-targeting. Social media algorithms identify individual preferences, enabling campaigns to show ads that reflect personal concerns. For instance, someone engaging with education-related posts may see ads highlighting school reforms. Email campaigns segment recipients by engagement, tailoring messages to frequent readers differently than casual ones.
Not about good politics, it is about metrics
Metrics guide decision-making. Polling data tracks voter sentiment and issue priorities. Social media analytics measure reach, engagement, and sentiment, identifying which posts or ads resonate most. Click-through rates (CTR) on online ads show interest levels, while conversion rates (e.g., signing petitions or donations) measure effectiveness. Heatmaps analyze website interaction, revealing which content attracts attention.
Focus groups test campaign materials before wider release. Participants share emotional reactions to slogans, ads, or speeches. This helps refine tone, visuals, and messaging. Surveys gather large-scale data on voter priorities and reactions, helping campaigns adjust their strategies to current trends.
Marketing segments are dynamic. Real-time data from polls, social media, and campaign events allows constant adaptation. Campaigns monitor sentiment shifts, responding with tailored ads, speeches, or public appearances. The focus is always on maximizing emotional impact for each voter group.
In political marketing, segmentation and metrics transform campaigns into precision tools. They ensure every message speaks directly to the feelings and needs of its intended audience, making campaigns more personal and effective.
No, we are not influenced by ads. Candidates spend billions of dollars
Many people believe they are immune to the influence of political campaigns. They see themselves as rational decision-makers, unaffected by ads, rallies, or social media posts. Yet, political parties spend billions on these campaigns for a reason: they work.
Political marketing often operates subtly. It does not need to change minds outright. Instead, it reinforces existing beliefs, shapes perceptions of candidates, or nudges undecided voters toward a choice. A well-placed ad or targeted social media post can plant an idea that grows over time, often without the voter realizing its source.
Campaigns exploit emotional triggers. Fear, hope, and anger influence decisions on a subconscious level. Even if voters do not remember a specific ad, the emotions it evokes linger. This emotional residue affects how they view issues, candidates, and policies, shaping their eventual choices.
Repetition plays a key role. Seeing a candidate’s name, slogan, or message repeatedly creates familiarity. Studies show people are more likely to trust what feels familiar, even without fully engaging with it. Campaigns use this to build recognition and credibility, influencing opinions subtly.
Social proof is another factor. Campaigns showcase large rallies, endorsements, or polling data to create a sense of momentum. This strategy taps into the psychological need to align with the majority, nudging voters to support the perceived winner or a popular cause.
Data-driven targeting amplifies this effect. Campaigns identify voter segments and tailor messages to their specific values and concerns. A single ad may seem insignificant, but when part of a coordinated strategy, it creates a powerful cumulative impact.
Voters may not feel swayed by campaigns because the influence often feels indirect. However, the billions spent by parties are not wasted. Campaigns are carefully designed to shape narratives, guide perceptions, and ultimately, drive decisions, often without voters being fully aware.
Examples of how to analyze politics without emotions and how to be resistant to them
Emotions don’t belong in politics in every single possible aspect. You must be a truly rational actor, devoid of any (even subtle) feelings, cognitive biases, fallacies, or formal fallacies – thinking critically.
When assessing whom to vote for, it is critical to strip away all distractions that aim to influence emotions. Ads are one of the biggest culprits. They are designed to manipulate feelings like fear, hope, or anger. They rely on striking visuals, dramatic music, and emotional appeals to leave a lasting impression. Ads rarely focus on substance. Instead, they amplify certain narratives to steer public perception. Ignore them entirely and focus on the candidate’s policies and record.
Social media posts are equally deceptive. They simplify complex issues into catchy phrases or memes. They often focus on outrage, designed to spark strong emotional reactions rather than encourage thoughtful discussion. Social media algorithms amplify this effect by showing you posts aligned with your biases, creating echo chambers. This skews your perception of reality. Do not let social media define your view of candidates or policies.
Charisma and appearance are irrelevant when it comes to leadership. A candidate’s polished speech, warm smile, or physical attractiveness has no bearing on their ability to govern effectively. Charisma can be used to mask a lack of experience or concrete plans. Ignore these surface traits and dig into their qualifications, actions, and proposed policies. Personality should never outweigh competence.
Emotions in politics: Negative campaign
Negative campaigning is a major distraction. Campaigns often attack opponents with personal smears or exaggerated scandals to discredit them. While some claims may have merit, most are designed to provoke disgust or anger. Focus only on verifiable facts that are directly tied to governance. If the negativity lacks substance, it is a distraction.
Celebrity endorsements add no value. A famous figure’s opinion does not provide insight into a candidate’s ability to lead. Celebrities do not typically offer expertise on political matters. Their involvement serves only to boost visibility and emotional appeal. Ignore endorsements completely and focus on what the candidate stands for.
Emotional rhetoric and stirring speeches are often deceptive. Politicians use powerful language to create a sense of urgency or hope. They appeal to fears, pride, or dreams to inspire loyalty. These techniques are crafted to engage feelings, not intellect. Look past their delivery and assess whether their words are backed by actionable plans and a clear understanding of issues.
Catchy phrases as the bottom of the bottom
Slogans and symbols are similarly unhelpful when assessing politics without emotions. Catchy phrases like “Make America Great Again” or symbolic gestures like waving flags appeal to group identity. They focus on broad emotional themes rather than substantive policy. Ignore these tools of mass appeal and focus on the candidate’s actual proposals.
Partisan loyalty often clouds judgment. Many voters choose candidates based solely on party affiliation, assuming the party aligns with their values. This oversimplifies the decision-making process. Evaluate each candidate individually. Even within the same party, candidates differ in competence, approach, and priorities. Do not let party allegiance override rational judgment.
Polling data and popularity can be misleading. Polls show trends but do not measure a candidate’s competence or suitability for office. Popularity may reflect charisma, media presence, or emotional appeal rather than the quality of their policies. Avoid using popularity as a deciding factor and focus on measurable achievements and plans.
No objective analysis
Media coverage often exaggerates and distorts. Sensationalism dominates political reporting because it attracts viewers. Stories focus on scandals, drama, or emotional appeals rather than objective analysis. Seek out direct sources like policy documents, interviews, and official records. Evaluate candidates on what they say and do, not how the media portrays them.
Emotional stories and anecdotes can also distort perception. Campaigns often share personal tales to humanize candidates or their policies. While these stories may be touching, they do not provide insight into a candidate’s leadership ability. Focus on their actions, not on isolated stories designed to appeal to your heart.
Promises without details are meaningless. Many candidates make sweeping claims about fixing problems without outlining clear plans. Look for specifics, such as timelines, budgets, and implementation strategies. If a candidate lacks detail, their promises are likely hollow. Ignore grandiose statements and prioritize realistic, well-thought-out proposals.
In sum, disregard anything designed to provoke an emotional response rather than provide logical reasoning. Ignore ads, social media posts, charisma, endorsements, slogans, and partisan loyalty. Focus only on verified facts, policy details, and measurable track records. This approach ensures a rational, informed decision that is free from manipulation.
You must be a robot
Going through the political program, you must make sure to be without any feelings, just like Warren Buffett invests, to envy his business competitors. You must weigh on the scales the information.
Precise work with information will lead you to the desired conclusion. Also, you should rationally realize that there is not only one political spectrum.
Party’s appearance in the media shouldn’t be decisive
Your choice should be guided by the politician’s reputation, and the party’s misdeeds, but their party’s non-appearance in media shouldn’t be taken into account.
Because the Big Banks, owned by the super-rich families also own media, and a party without proper connections is disqualified at the start.
Emotions in politics: the party with less clientelism should be preferred
In my model, parties are controlled by media that are financed by people and have no owner. They check each other for the presence of clientelism so they can find clientelism in the top echelon of politics (and even at the lower levels).
The media should inform what happens in the political background where most of the political process is occurring.
Conclusion
While emotions in deciding in the voting booths are decisive, it shouldn’t be so. Emotions are enormously detrimental in assessing which party or politician to choose.
Grossly distorted by the super-rich, information should be observed with great caution. All of the critical thinking – no cognitive biases, no fallacies, no formal fallacies.
Ideologies, as an evolutionary-made product, are abused by politicians and the super-rich in order to have their wealth intact and manipulate people.
If cold rationality prevailed over stupid evolutionary-given emotions, the world would be a completely different place.
Leave a Reply