Congressman Ro Khanna argues that the primary corrupting force in American politics has shifted from money to hate and extremism. The modern attention economy rewards divisive behavior with media coverage and base support, making rational, bipartisan compromise a politically costly strategy.
Related Insights
Political discourse often fixates on emotionally charged, minor components of legislation (like the 10% of a healthcare bill for immigrants) to control the narrative and divert public attention from the larger, more complex financial or policy implications that affect the other 90%.
Cable news and social media don't show the average person who votes differently. They blast the loudest, most cartoonish "professional lunatics" from the opposing side. This creates a false impression that the entire opposition is extreme, making tribalism seem rational.
Instead of incremental shifts around a moderate center (e.g., between 4 and 6 on a dial), US policy now swings violently between ideological extremes (3 and 9). This dynamic makes stable, consensus-based governance on issues like immigration nearly impossible.
A savvy political strategy involves forcing opponents to publicly address the most extreme statements from their ideological allies. This creates an impossible purity test. No answer is good enough for the fringe, and any attempt to placate them alienates the mainstream, effectively creating a schism that benefits the opposing party.
Algorithms optimize for engagement, and outrage is highly engaging. This creates a vicious cycle where users are fed increasingly polarizing content, which makes them angrier and more engaged, further solidifying their radical views and deepening societal divides.
Extremist figures are not organic phenomena but are actively amplified by social media algorithms that prioritize incendiary content for engagement. This process elevates noxious ideas far beyond their natural reach, effectively manufacturing influence for profit and normalizing extremism.
In populist moments, leaders often abandon the idea of compromise and instead treat the opposing side as an enemy to be defeated. Language describing American cities as "war zones" or "training grounds" reveals this divisive mindset, which prioritizes conflict over unity.
In times of extreme polarization, the political middle is not a safe haven but a kill zone. Moderates are targeted by both sides because they have no tribe to defend them. The escalating cost of neutrality forces everyone to pick a side, eliminating compromise and accelerating conflict.
Focusing on which political side is "crazier" misses the point. The fundamental danger is the psychological process of tribalism itself. It simplifies complex issues into "us vs. them," impairs rational thought, and inevitably leads to extremism on all sides.
In times of economic inequality, people are psychologically driven to vote for policies that punish a perceived enemy—like the wealthy or immigrants—rather than those that directly aid the poor. This powerful emotional desire for anger and a villain fuels populist leaders.
