Harness your anger — politicians and commentators adopt divisive politics

“Let your anger be fueled,” said Abigail Spanberger, a Democratic candidate for governor in Virginia, echoing what many refer to as the “anger politics” permeating the U.S. today.

Across the nation, politicians and commentators are fanning the flames of anger, urging voters to channel it. It’s like watching something out of a sci-fi movie—filled with chaotic speeches pushing for vengeance, as if every outburst somehow makes you stronger.

Now, I don’t think Spanberger is endorsing violence, not really. She seemed to be sharing her mother’s prudent advice with her audience. Still, anger is very much part of the landscape we’re in.

Take, for instance, Harvard Professor Michael Kraman. He publicly declared his rage, calling out specific groups and expressing that his anger serves to “wake people up.” It’s unsettling, really, how some view it as a motivating force. But, seriously, anger tends to exact a toll on our discourse.

I recently penned a book on this very theme—angry politics and the implications for free speech. It examines the roots of our current rage and its consequences, which can lead to violence and repression. Once anger grips people, it becomes a green light for remarks they’d never utter otherwise. It’s kind of infectious, and, worryingly, dangerous.

The consequences are apparent. There has been a noted uptick in violence, evident in incidents like the assault on Charlie Kirk and attacks on ICE agents in Texas.

Anger can dehumanize those on the other side of the aisle. A disturbing example is the recent arrest of two sisters, Kelly and Kaylee Rollo, who vandalized a Kirk memorial. They set up a GoFundMe to finance what they labeled a “fight against fascism,” collecting thousands from sympathetic donors who supported their actions.

For months, we’ve been highlighting the spiraling rhetoric escalating into real violence. Politicians have ramped up accusations against ICE agents, with Governor Gavin Newsom even signing legislation just before a sniper attack, seemingly egging on dissent with a chuckle and a challenge.

In Texas, a shooter targeted an ICE facility, raising many eyebrows about the connection between inflammatory statements and violent occurrences. Just weeks earlier, Newsom had expressed fears about Trump’s strategy to use ICE to suppress voting.

Other figures engaged in the fiery discourse have gone so far as to liken ICE agents to oppressive regimes throughout history. Representative Jasmine Crockett referred to their actions as reminiscent of “slave patrols,” while Minnesota Governor Tim Walz compared them to a modern-day Gestapo.

This rhetoric, embellished with claims of authoritarianism, reverberates throughout various political circles. Some academics have referred to these tactics as rooted in a form of racial hegemony.

As I discussed in my book, the quest for political power often rides on waves of rage. While anger can be an enticing weapon, it transforms into a dependency when fully embraced. A notable fraction of the populace is susceptible to these overstated claims.

Unfortunately, this has led to dire circumstances, as seen in attempts on the lives of political figures. Some have begun to voice regret over the violence that has erupted, which strikingly includes Hillary Clinton, a figure previously known for her sharp critiques of opponents.

Recent surveys indicate that a significant majority view political violence as pressing, yet the angry discourse remains unapologetically prevalent.

Efforts to ease this tension seem fleeting. Key public figures continue to inject animosity into our political fabric. Breaking this cycle isn’t simple, but the desire to change must come first. There’s little indication that our current trajectory will shift until voters consciously push back against this cycle of anger.