At an Ohio campaign rally in March, Trump declared, “If I don’t get elected, it’s going to be a blood bath for the whole country.”
In other words, Trump and his allies respond to adversity and what they see as attacks from the left with threats and anger, while a segment of the left often but not always responds to adversity and social inequity with dejection and sorrow.
There are significant consequences for this internalization.
Jamin Halberstadt, a professor of psychology at the University of Otago in New Zealand and a co-author of “Outgroup Threat and the Emergence of Cohesive Groups: A Cross-Cultural Examination,” argued in his emailed reply to my inquiry that “a focus on injustice and victimhood is by definition disempowering (isn’t that why we talk of ‘survivors’ rather than ‘victims’?), loss of control is not good for self-esteem or happiness.”
But, he pointed out:
This focus, while no doubt a part of the most visible and influential side of progressive ideology, is still just a part. “Liberalism” is a big construct, and I’m reluctant to reduce it to “a focus on social justice issues.” Some liberals have this view, but I suspect their influence is outsized because (a) they have the social media megaphone, and (b) we are in a climate in which freedom of expression, and in particular challenges to the worldview you characterize, have been curtailed.
Expanding on this line of argument, Halberstadt wrote:
I’m sure some self-described “liberals” have views that are counterproductive to their own happiness. One sub-ideology associated with liberalism is, as you describe, a sense of victimhood and grievance. But there is more than one way to respond to structural barriers. Within that group of the aggrieved, some probably see systemic problems that cannot be overcome, and that’s naturally demoralizing and depressing. But others see systemic problems as a challenge to overcome.
Taking Halberstadt’s assessment of the effects of grievance and victimhood a step farther, Timothy A. Judge, chairman of the department of management and human resources at Notre Dame, wrote in a 2009 paper, “Core Self-Evaluations and Work Success”:
Core self-evaluations (CSE) is a broad, integrative trait indicated by self-esteem, locus of control, generalized self-efficacy, and (low) neuroticism (high emotional stability).
Individuals with high levels of CSE perform better on their jobs, are more successful in their careers, are more satisfied with their jobs and lives, report lower levels of stress and conflict, cope more effectively with setbacks, and better capitalize on advantages and opportunities.
I asked Judge and other scholars a question: Have liberal pessimists fostered an outlook that spawns unhappiness as its adherents believe they face seemingly insurmountable structural barriers?
Judge replied by email:
I do share the perspective that a focus on status, hierarchies and institutions that reinforce privilege contributes to an external locus of control. And the reason is fairly straightforward. We can only change these things through collective, and often, policy initiatives — which tend to be complex, slow, often conflictual, and outside our individual control.
On the other hand, if I view “life’s chances” (Virginia Woolf’s term) to be mostly dependent on my own agency, this reflects an internal focus, which will often depend on enacting initiatives largely within my control.
Judge elaborated on his argument:
If our predominant focus in how we view the world is social inequities, status hierarchies, societal unfairness conferred by privilege, then everyone would agree that these things are not easy to fix, which means, in a sense, we must accept some unhappy premises: Life isn’t fair; outcomes are outside my control, often at the hands of bad, powerful actors; social change depends on collective action that may be conflictual; an individual may have limited power to control their own destiny, etc.
These are not happy thoughts because they cause me to view the world as inherently unfair, oppressive, conflictual, etc. It may or may not be right, but I would argue that these are in fact viewpoints of how we view the world, and our place in it, that would undermine our happiness.
Last year, George Yancey, a professor of sociology at Baylor University, published “Identity Politics, Political Ideology, and Well-being: Is Identity Politics Good for Our Well-being?”
