As the Hungarian proverb puts it, "Anger is a poor advisor." The saying aptly captures the idea that intense negative emotions can become dangerous when they shape strategic decision-making. Modern political marketing often seeks to capitalize on the political advantages that these emotions and tensions can generate. Election campaign communication is therefore frequently characterized by negative messages: candidates attacking their opponents, highlighting their mistakes, instilling fear of them, questioning their credibility, and ridiculing them. Many people instinctively condemn such negative campaigning, arguing that it is based on maintaining a climate of constant conflict and that it diminishes the quality of both politics and public discourse. And yet, such messages continue to appear in election campaigns around the world. If a significant portion of the electorate truly rejects these tactics, why do politicians still use them? One might ask this seemingly naïve question. It presents an apparent paradox: although voters repeatedly express frustration with smear campaigns, research suggests that these tactics continue to influence virtually everyone – sometimes in ways that run counter to our expectations. Wood implicitly argues that negative media campaigns merely reflect a broader social process. In the language of political marketing: it is not the campaign that generates anger, rather, it capitalizes on the anger that already exists.
However, as Wood explains in his book, the problem is that this anger is no longer merely a tool used during election campaigns. Anger is not a switch that politicians “turn on” in voters before an election and simply “turn off” once the polls close. It lives with us; it has become a constant presence, an integral part of our everyday culture. One of the key arguments of Wood’s book is that a so-called “new anger” has emerged and become the norm in contemporary American and, more broadly, Western societies. (p.9).
Whereas anger was once regarded as a sign of lost self-control, a form of human weakness, or even a personal failing, it is now often celebrated in public as evidence of sincerity, authenticity, and moral superiority. Wood points out that anger has become performative – a form of cultural expression, a style, or even a way of being. When someone expresses anger – whether an activist, an opinion leader, or a politician – the public tends to interpret it as a sign that the person is a champion of justice, deeply committed to and genuinely invested in the cause they represent. It is this persistent, institutionalized state of grievance and self-justifying outrage that fuels social tension and, as Wood suggests, keeps society trapped in an endless cycle of retaliation rather than reconciliation. When this culturally embedded, performative anger intersects with partisan politics, the consequences extend far beyond the battles waged on social media platforms. Emotions are no longer a means of weighing competing arguments; rather, they reinforce a rigid tribal logic. But why does this happen? The answer lies at the intersection of political psychology and evolutionary psychology. After all, anger is not a tool of rational debate; rather, as an emotion, it serves as an indispensable means of belonging to a group, operating on multiple levels. First, at the individual level, the human brain switches to “survival mode” in such situations, simplifying the world around us. Second, at the group level, anger takes on a performative function and becomes a signal of loyalty toward the in-group. Third, at the intergroup level, it serves to defend one’s group identity and mobilize against the enemy. From this point onward, arguments become less a means of seeking consensus and more a weapon deployed to harm the opposing side.
Anger toward political opponents, therefore, operates primarily through mechanisms of social identity rather than through genuine disagreements over policy. Numerous studies have shown that party supporters feel hostility toward politicians or supporters of rival parties not simply because of differences in policy preferences, but because they are perceived as threatening members of an external, so-called out-group. We tend to view political anger as a blind and irrational impulse. In reality, however, it is often driven by a ruthlessly precise logic. When researchers examined the factors that influence voters' decisions to support their own side or punish their opponents, they uncovered a surprising pattern: the angry voter is not necessarily motivated by a desire to support his or her own community; instead, the primary focus is on damaging or defeating the opposing side.
The consequences of political anger are evident in many areas, but its limitations are equally apparent, as demonstrated by a series of behavioral economics experiments. Imagine that you are given a sum of money and paired with a stranger about whom we know nothing except whom they voted for. You are then given a button that allows you—without any personal benefit, purely out of spite—to destroy a portion of the other person’s money. The experiment produced shocking results: people are willing to inflict even financial losses on their political opponents. For example, the cited study found that, out of sheer anger, Clinton voters destroyed 15 percent more “earnings” (i.e., the real-money reward intended for the other player) when paired with Trump voters than they did when paired with fellow Clinton supporters. Political anger can thus become literally destructive: the objective is no longer to improve one’s own situation, but to hurt the other side.
To this day, the exact causes of political anger, as well as the long-term effectiveness of efforts to address it, remain highly uncertain. Most studies struggle to determine whether psychological factors give rise to anger, or whether the opposite is true. What is clear, however, is that framing issues in terms of identity politics almost invariably intensifies hostility. The greatest challenge is that attempts at partisan reconciliation tend to produce only extremely short-lived effects. It is precisely the uncertainty surrounding the findings of scientific research that makes the conclusion of Peter W. Wood’s book particularly relevant. According to Wood, “peace-building tactics” tested under laboratory conditions, as well as top-down intervention strategies, cannot by themselves, bring about lasting social peace because the roots of the problem are deeply embedded in culture.
Since the anger that grips society has become an institutionalized attitude, a kind of expected behavioral norm, the author sees the way forward not in reforming political systems, but in individual responsibility and the rediscovery of classical virtues. Wood warns that we must relearn self-control, return to rational debate, and – “no matter how old-fashioned it may sound to modern ears” – forgiveness toward the other side. In his view, the only way to break the culture of anger is for individuals to choose not to take part in the absolute theater of performative outrage. According to Wood, the key to the solution lies not in “fixing” or defeating the other side, but in consciously renouncing our own self-justifying anger and breaking free from the logic of grievance.
Peter W. Wood's book is available at the MCC Library.
