The midterm elections are over, but for some Americans, the anxiety is just beginning. For months, campaign ads, fundraising emails, and cable news panels have warned voters that their freedom, safety, and the country’s future hang on the outcome. Now those whose candidates lost may be wondering just how bad things are going to get.
As a psychotherapist, I spend much of my time helping people manage anxiety by challenging their tendency to imagine the worst-case scenario while they underestimate their ability to cope. Yet politicians routinely encourage the very habits of thinking I spend my days helping patients overcome.
This is called catastrophizing. A man loses his job and decides he’ll never work again. A woman’s relationship ends, and she concludes she’ll never find love. A setback becomes a catastrophe, and the person loses sight of what remains within their control.
Politicians of both parties benefit from this thinking. Every election is billed as “the most important of our lifetimes.” Voters are told that everything is at stake if their side loses. Fear gets people to the polls and opens wallets. Few politicians are going to tell voters they’ll probably be fine if the other side wins.
I’ve come to think of this as a kind of political dependency: people’s moods rise and fall with polls and election results. They look to politicians for reassurance that everything will be OK. When their candidates lose, they may feel helpless, even though much of their day-to-day life remains within their control.
The problem is that politics offers very little of the certainty people are looking for. Even when their preferred candidates win, there are new battles to fight, new threats to worry about, and promises that may never be fulfilled. Someone who relies on political victories to feel secure is likely to spend a lot of time feeling disappointed. And the more attention they devote to Washington, the less attention they may give to the people and problems right in front of them.
Before the 2024 election, Georgetown University’s McCourt School of Public Policy offered students a post-election “self-care suite” with Legos, coloring books, hot chocolate and cookies. I have nothing against cookies or coloring books. But what message are we sending young adults when we prepare them to cope with an election as though it were a traumatic event?
There’s a difference between helping people manage disappointment and teaching them to expect that disappointment will overwhelm them. Young adults will face plenty of setbacks far more personal than an election loss. They’ll be rejected for jobs, experience breakups, and confront situations they can’t control. Learning to tolerate frustration and uncertainty is part of becoming an adult. When institutions treat ordinary disappointments as psychological emergencies, they risk undermining the very resilience they should be helping students develop.
In a 2024 survey, the American Psychological Association found that 69% of Americans considered the presidential election a significant source of stress. More than half feared the election could mean the end of American democracy. It’s one thing for politicians to argue that their opponents have bad ideas. It’s another to convince voters that their safety, freedom, and future are at stake if those opponents win. Yet that’s exactly the message voters hear election after election.
Elections matter, of course. Government decisions affect taxes, healthcare, immigration, and education, and some policies can have serious consequences for people’s lives. Those concerns can be legitimate. But losing an election doesn’t necessarily mean that the worst is going to happen.
I’ve seen what happens when people become convinced they have little control over their circumstances. A patient struggling with a difficult boss, for example, may decide that no other employer will hire him. He spends his evenings worrying about the next day at work but never updates his résumé or looks for another position. The boss may genuinely be difficult, but the patient’s belief that he’s powerless has made a bad situation worse.
Politics can produce a similar sense of helplessness. People check the news constantly, imagine what might go wrong next, and look for reassurance that things will be OK. And there’s always another election, another crisis, another reason to worry.
The constant exposure doesn’t necessarily make people better informed or more effective citizens. Someone can spend hours following every political controversy and still have little influence over how it turns out. Meanwhile, the anxiety spills into conversations with friends, family dinners, and even relationships. People who once enjoyed each other’s company may find themselves arguing over politicians they’ve never met.
One of the questions I ask anxious patients is what they can control. Usually, it’s more than they initially think. They may not be able to change another person’s behavior, but they can decide how to respond. They may not be able to prevent a setback, but they can take steps to recover from it.
EDITORIAL: TRUMP’S CORRUPTION HAS COST REPUBLICANS DEARLY
An election loss doesn’t take away those choices. People can volunteer, support causes they believe in, get involved locally, and prepare for policies they oppose. They can go to work, raise their children, and maintain friendships that aren’t defined by politics. None of that becomes less important because an election didn’t go your way.
In therapy, I try to help people recognize that they can handle more than they think. They can’t control everything that happens to them, but they can learn to respond when things don’t go their way. Losing an election doesn’t change that. Politicians have enormous influence over public policy. They shouldn’t have that much influence over our peace of mind.