In recent electoral cycles, a poignant lesson has emerged from the ruins of political strategies that prioritize derision over genuine dialogue. The approach of labeling opponents with vile terms—terms meant to shame and coerce voters—has proven to be a recipe for electoral failure, as evidenced by recent political dynamics involving Vice President Kamala Harris and her surrogates. Although Harris herself may not have directly uttered such divisive language, the rhetoric from her supporters projected just that: an attempt to shame the electorate into voting against former President Donald Trump. This tactic, primarily coined by predominantly left-leaning media and influencers, backfired as it alienated potential allies and instead fortified the opposition.
Today’s politically charged media landscape has mutated into a realm where trust is scarce. Rather than serving as informational bases, many outlets have channeled their energies toward fostering divisiveness. Such entities, occupying the seats of cultural and intellectual opinion-makers, wield their influence not to unify but to segment. The unintended consequence of these actions is a growing badge of dishonor that sticks to those who seek validation through such partisan endorsements.
Why do those on the left persist in this counterproductive strategy? Nate Silver, a seasoned statistician, provides an illuminating insight: Republicans often welcome partial agreement in debates, whereas Democrats may react negatively to anything less than full alignment. This moral and perceptual divide fosters distinct emotional responses to electoral outcomes. Conservatives may feel disappointment or sadness in the face of defeat, while left-liberals experience a profound, visceral response characterized by anger.
The source of this anger may be traced to a pervasive mindset among many on the left, who, as Michelle Tandler notes, view those on the right not merely as misguided but as adversaries. Such perceptions have been shaped and reinforced by public intellectuals and media figures who hold sway over the ideological narrative. Social science underscores this divide; while conservatives tend to understand progressive ideas, albeit disagreeing with their premises, progressives often dismiss conservative philosophy as not merely mistaken, but morally reprehensible.
The revered philosopher Sir Roger Scruton keenly observed the prevailing attitude in the intellectual milieu: conservatism is not simply considered incorrect by liberal standards, but morally corrupt. This belief echoes through leftist rhetoric that paints conservative viewpoints as inherently evil—a sentiment originating from an entrenched psychological and quasi-religious worldview. During high-stakes political periods, this manifests in a torrent of derogatory labels, branding adversaries with accusations of fascism, racism, and various disparaging attributes.
Reflecting on personal experiences, one might recall family gatherings where political discussions reveal the same presumptive mindset—where disagreement is unimaginable or is met with hostility. Such engagements serve as microcosms for the broader societal trend, where dissenting opinions are not merely challenged but dismissed under moral pretenses that foster division rather than dialogue.
Ultimately, the arrogance underlying these political strategies emphasizes hubris over humility. For a democratic society to thrive, it must foster an environment where opposing views are tolerated and respected, allowing citizens to engage in meaningful discourse. Forgetting this foundational principle leads to a cycle of bitterness, eroding the very fabric of unity. The pathway to lasting victory lies not in vilification but in understanding—the cornerstone of any truly free and open society.
