Why do public attitudes swing from one extreme to another, and how can we change our political choices without rejecting everything that came before? On expectations, disappointment and polarisation in politics.
Political life has its fluctuations. Sometimes public attitudes change gradually; at other times, the shift is so sharp that society moves from one political position almost to its opposite. Yesterday’s hero becomes today’s enemy, while yesterday’s enemy becomes a new saviour; disappointment gives way to hope, and hope to disappointment. This is how the political pendulum moves.
There is nothing unusual about changes in public attitudes. One of the defining features of democratic politics is precisely that people revise their views, assess political actors and make new choices. The problem begins when emotional rejection takes the place of assessment, a new idealisation takes the place of disappointment, and leaving one extreme automatically means moving to the other.
Political history offers many such episodes. High expectations have often given way to bitter disappointment, and strong support to almost complete rejection. This is not confined to changes between political forces; the pendulum can also swing within a single political group.
Political choices are almost always tied to expectations. People expect a better economy, greater justice, security and more effective institutions. The difficulty begins when expectations exceed what is realistically possible. Institutions have their own inertia, economic processes take time, and the international environment imposes its own constraints. After victory comes what was less visible beforehand: an encounter with reality.
The American political scientist Christopher Wlezien offered an illuminating account of this kind of public response. He described the relationship between public opinion and government policy through the model of a “thermostat.” In his account, when policy moves substantially in one direction, demand for further movement in that direction may diminish, while demand for a correction in the opposite direction grows.¹
This metaphor is also useful for understanding the political pendulum. A change that seemed essential yesterday may look excessive tomorrow, while a course that once seemed acceptable may later require correction. The problem is not correction itself, but the point at which it becomes a wholesale rejection of a previous choice instead of a considered assessment. Society no longer says: “We were wrong here; this must change, but that should be preserved.” It says: “It was all a mistake.”
Albert Hirschman’s thinking is also relevant to explaining a move from one position to another. He gives disappointment a particular place in political and social behaviour and considers why experience with one course may push a society towards the opposite choice.² In politics, disappointment can create a new demand. If society places very high expectations on a particular political actor and those expectations go unmet, the desire for an entirely opposite choice can emerge. A new illusion can easily take hold: if the old choice turned out badly, its opposite must automatically be right. But the failure of one political actor is not proof that another will succeed. One side’s mistake does not mean that every position held by its opponent was right, just as success cannot excuse every mistake.
Another force driving the pendulum is polarisation. Political disagreement is both natural and necessary in a democracy. The problem begins when a difference of opinion becomes a judgement of a person as a whole. Contemporary political science often describes this phenomenon as “affective polarisation.” Political affiliation can become a form of social identity, intensifying positive feelings towards one’s own group and negative feelings towards the other.³
In such an environment, decisions are no longer judged solely on their substance. Who made the decision also matters. The same idea may be acceptable when voiced by “one of us” and unacceptable when repeated by an opponent. The central question becomes: “Whose side are you on?” At that point, the pendulum is driven not only by changed circumstances but also by accumulated emotion.
Rapid reassessments of the past reinforce this process. Every new political period brings the temptation to read history through the interests of the present. Yesterday’s achievements may be stripped of all value today, while yesterday’s mistakes may be magnified until it seems that the entire past consisted of nothing else. Reassessing the past is natural, but we must consider not only what we know today, but also what people knew then, what alternatives existed and what constraints shaped their decisions. This does not absolve anyone of responsibility; on the contrary, only such an approach can establish it accurately.
Keeping a moderate position is especially difficult when the political pendulum swings. Moderation does not mean having no position. A person can hold a clear political view and still acknowledge a sound decision by an opponent or recognise a mistake made by an ally. This is one of the harder forms of political maturity. Must we completely destroy yesterday’s hero in order to acknowledge their mistake? Must we reject an earlier choice in its entirety in order to make a new one? And must we first proclaim every new political actor a saviour, only to turn them into an enemy later?
One sign of a society’s political maturity is its ability to see reality beyond these swings and to distinguish criticism from hatred, hope from illusion, and a political opponent from an enemy.
Can the pendulum be stopped? Probably not. Public attitudes will change; political actors will lose and gain trust; new leaders will emerge, and old ideas will return in new forms. This is a natural part of politics. The main question, therefore, is not how to stop the pendulum, but how wide its swings should be.
Changes in public attitudes are inevitable. What matters is that we do not lose the ability to make judgements as we change. We should see in the past not only mistakes but also what is worth preserving, and in the new not only hope but also what is realistically possible. Political maturity begins when changing our choice no longer requires us to reject the previous one completely, and disappointment no longer compels us to search for a new saviour.
The pendulum may keep moving, but society does not have to follow every swing to its extreme.
References
1. Christopher Wlezien, “The Public as Thermostat: Dynamics of Preferences for Spending,” American Journal of Political Science 39, no. 4 (1995): 981–1000. DOI: 10.2307/2111666.
2. Albert O. Hirschman, Shifting Involvements: Private Interest and Public Action (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1982; 20th Anniversary ed., 2002).
3. Shanto Iyengar, Gaurav Sood, and Yphtach Lelkes, “Affect, Not Ideology: A Social Identity Perspective on Polarization,” Public Opinion Quarterly 76, no. 3 (2012): 405–431. DOI: 10.1093/poq/nfs038.