Fomenting Anger
America is entering a volatile chapter—one not seen since the upheavals of the 1960s. The recent assassination of Minnesota State Senator Melissa Hortman, along with the 2024 attempt on Donald Trump’s life, are not just tragic events—they are symptoms of a nation increasingly gripped by political rage. Citizens across the spectrum are growing angrier, more frustrated, and more fearful about where the country is headed. The partisan divide has become not just ideological, but personal—and dangerous.
A recent bipartisan poll may provide some insight into our current state. The poll, conducted by Republican pollsters from Tarrance Group and Democrat pollsters from Lake Research Partners, placed an emphasis on understanding voter attitudes toward threats to democracy. In the poll, they found that 81% of respondents stated that they believe democracy in America is currently being threatened, 72% agreeing with that statement strongly. Both Republicans and Democrats agree the most partisan arm of the other party presents a threat to democracy.
The issues leading up to the anger and frustration are multi-layered and somewhat tangled. The unfettered growth of social media, the partisan bias of traditional media, and the increase in partisan messaging from the two major political parties are a few of the variables leading up to this state of affairs. However, a major variable involves the words, actions and messaging of political leaders…the ones best positioned to turn down the temperature. The question is whether the behavior of our elected leaders is working to quell or foment the anger.
A study by Science Direct at how anger affects leadership. The researchers studied how a leader’s anger and impulsive behavior (acting without thinking) work together. “Trait anger” means someone gets angry easily and often. The study used information from real leaders, their team members, and their bosses. It showed that leaders who often get angry and act without thinking are seen as less ethical by their team. Their bosses also think they don’t adjust well in the workplace. In short, leaders who can’t control their anger and actions are not seen as good role models.
However, anger…if directed at a common enemy can be useful for political leaders. Anger creates focus. Get mad and you tend to focus on one thing -- the source of your anger. All you can see is what's in front of you. That degree of focus can be extremely powerful.
Anger generates confidence. Get mad and the automatic rush of adrenaline heightens your senses and reduces your inhibitions. Anger -- in small, controlled doses -- can be the spark that gets you started.
Of course, there's still one major problem with getting mad: It's easy to say and do things that have secondary consequences. And you can say things you later regret. But even more importantly, for good or bad, leaders are role models. And the words, actions and messages of elected leaders can influence followers to engage in inappropriate behaviors, including increased political violence.
Gina Goldenberg of the Harvard Kennedy School describes the important role leaders play. She stated, “We have the power to change Americans’ attitudes about political violence if our leaders are willing to do the responsible thing and provide leadership that keeps our democracy functioning peacefully … Leadership is extraordinarily important. We want responsible leaders who provide an example of how to be a member of a democracy for people who support them or not. But the problem with that is that we can’t control our leaders.”
Author and journalist, Jo Piazza describes the role leaders can play to foment anger. Anger directed toward the opposition can motivate followers. She adds, “Political polarization makes both support for political violence (on the individual level) and the occurrence of political violence (on the societal level) more likely. In other words, polarization “makes politics more dangerous.”
When political violence occurs, the response of elected leaders and the coverage of the national media can serve to quell or amplify the likelihood of increased and recurring political violence. Following the tragic shootings of state legislators in Minnesota, an overwhelming number of elected officials from both major political parties condemned the violent acts.
Sadly, some used the incident as an opportunity to stroke the political divide. Republican Senator Mike Lee of Utah posted on social media, “This is what happens ... When Marxists don’t get their way,” along with the photo of the suspected shooter, implying that the shooter was a disgruntled leftist. Following a negative reaction from the public, as well as colleagues from both parties, he deleted the remarks from his social media account. Senator Lee’s remarks earn a red flag. His remarks were spreading misinformation about the shooter and were clearly uncalled for under the tragic circumstances.
Unfortunately, with incidents such as this, once the immediate response to a violent incident subsides, political leaders and pundits often resume the practice of blaming political violence on the other political party. However, beyond left-wing and right-wing extremists, two groups that were involved in significantly increased political violence since 2000, were people with a single issue driving their actions (such as abortion), or people whose motive was unclear or uncertain. The words of partisan leaders may be an influence to some to commit violent acts, but it can get murky in proving a direct line of responsibility.
As stated, elected leaders are role models. Their words and actions contribute to a political culture. Will it be a culture that overlooks violent political acts, or worse, even encourages them? The answer may be determined by the voters’ response to the words and actions of elected leaders.
In a democracy, disagreement is inevitable—but dehumanization is not. The tone set by political leaders carries enormous weight. When leaders channel anger into action, acknowledge complexity, and resist the urge to demonize the opposition, they model what it means to govern with integrity. But when they weaponize rage—intentionally or carelessly—they contribute to a culture where violence becomes thinkable, even justifiable.
The choice is stark. Leaders can either be accelerants or stabilizers. In an age of volatility, the true test of leadership is not how forcefully one can rally their base—but how responsibly one can rise above it. America needs leaders who can be angry about injustice without becoming unjust themselves. The temperature is rising. It’s time for leaders who know how to turn down the heat.
