The Politics Of Humiliation

Across the West, political debate has devolved into personal abuse. People no longer simply disagree about taxation, immigration, climate policy, education, or public health. Increasingly, they believe that those on the other side, and the institutions that govern them, regard them with contempt.

This helps explain why statistics so often fail to persuade. A government may cite falling unemployment, rising investment, or stronger economic growth, but citizens judge the situation by the texture of their own lives: they cannot afford rent; their work has been stripped of dignity; their town has lost its young people; an institution’s apology came years too late; the language of public life no longer sounds as though it includes them.

Much of today’s populism stems from a crisis that is neither purely economic nor merely cultural. It is a crisis of trust and status, rooted in the sense that one’s life is becoming less secure, less respected, and less consequential—and that no one in authority is willing to admit it.

The demagogue’s first achievement is not a policy victory but an act of recognition. He tells his audience that they have been cheated, that their anger proves they see clearly, and that those who govern them are not simply mistaken but hostile. From there, every disappointment acquires an author, every complicated problem is traced to an enemy, and wounded people are promised that they can recover their dignity by taking it from someone else.

Francis Fukuyama argues that political life is shaped not only by material interests but also by the human need for recognition, the need to know that one’s dignity is publicly acknowledged. People seek security, certainly, but they also want assurance that their lives, judgments, work, and communities matter. The demagogue exploits this desire. He does not merely promise better conditions. He tells the disrespected that they are the true people, that their suffering proves their virtue, and that anyone who refuses to honor them is an enemy of the nation.

At this point, the longing for dignity curdles into resentment. Recognition becomes a zero-sum political good: one group is told it can recover its standing only by diminishing another. The wounded are not invited into a larger common life. Instead, they are drawn into a moral drama of betrayal, purification, and revenge.⁶

That is why contempt is so politically dangerous. When institutions speak only in the language of expertise, correction, and moral diagnosis, they leave a space that demagogues are eager to fill with promises of recognition. The answer is not to replace truth with flattery. It is to tell the truth about social injury, hold power accountable, and offer people a form of belonging that does not depend on someone else’s humiliation.

Danielle Allen argues that democracy depends on forms of trust that are neither naive nor sentimental. Public institutions cannot demand confidence simply because they need it. They must give people reason to believe that the burdens and benefits of shared life are distributed fairly, that their voices carry weight, and that those who exercise power remain answerable to those who live with the consequences of that power. Trust, on this account, is not the absence of disagreement. It is the civic confidence that one may disagree, even lose, and still remain a full member of the political community.

The defining political question of the next decade may not be whether Western democracies can defeat misinformation. It may be whether they can restore the social conditions in which truth is heard as something other than an insult.

Distrust cannot be overcome by asking people to trust, and status anxiety cannot be cured by insisting that status is irrelevant. Democracy must make a more demanding commitment: ordinary people must be seen, heard, protected, and treated as equal participants in a shared future.

Allen’s insight also shows why this work is both institutional and rhetorical. Democracy cannot sustain trust when public power feels distant, opaque, and insulated from the consequences of its failures. Trust grows through reciprocity. Those asked to bear losses must see that their sacrifice has been noticed and that the burden is not theirs alone. Citizenship must mean more than being consulted after the important decisions have already been made.⁸

If democracy cannot make that promise credible, others will offer a counterfeit in its place: resentment masquerading as solidarity, domination disguised as dignity, and the grim comfort of blaming one another instead of a shared future.

Endnotes

1. Michael J. Sandel, The Tyranny of Merit: What’s Become of the Common Good? (New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2020), 6, Kindle edition.

2. Sandel, The Tyranny of Merit, 13, Kindle edition.

3. Sandel, The Tyranny of Merit, 41, Kindle edition.

4. Sandel, The Tyranny of Merit, 41, Kindle edition.

5. Francis Fukuyama, Identity: The Demand for Dignity and the Politics of Resentment (New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2018), 9–10, 18. Fukuyama identifies thymos as the human capacity that “craves recognition” and argues that it generates demands for public recognition of one’s worth.

6. Fukuyama, Identity, xv, 9–10, 18, 65–66. Fukuyama distinguishes universal recognition from narrower forms of recognition rooted in nationality, religion, race, ethnicity, or other particular identities; he argues that populist nationalism cannot be understood or answered in merely economic terms.

7. Danielle Allen, Talking to Strangers: Anxieties of Citizenship since Brown v. Board of Education (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2004), 33–34, 140–41. Allen develops an account of democratic citizenship in which trust, reciprocity, sacrifice, and the capacity to share political life across difference are mutually implicated.

8. Danielle Allen, Our Declaration: A Reading of the Declaration of Independence in Defense of Equality (New York: Liveright, 2014), 21–25, 203–7. See also Danielle Allen, Talking to Strangers, 140–41.

Written by Mark J. Chironna, PhD.

Dr. Mark Chironna is a public scholar, executive and personal coach, and thought leader with five decades of experience in leadership development, cultural analysis, and future-focused strategies. With advanced degrees in Psychology, Applied Semiotics and Futures Studies, and Theology, he brings a unique interdisciplinary approach to helping individuals and organizations navigate complexity, unlock potential, and craft innovative solutions.

As a Board Certified Coach with over 30,000 hours of experience, he empowers leaders and teams to thrive through resilience, foresight, and actionable strategies. Passionate about human flourishing, he integrates psychological insight and cultural trends to inspire growth and transformation.

WEBSITE::  www.markchironna.com

• Next