Chapter 5.9 | The Moral Mirage: How the Political Duopoly Weaponizes Our Innate Sense of Righteousness
The Engineered Divide: How Our Political System Profiteers from Moral Warfare
There was a time, not so long ago, when disagreements over policy in America, however heated, generally unfolded within a shared understanding of facts. We might have argued passionately about tax rates, foreign policy, or social programs, but beneath it all, there was a foundational agreement on what constituted objective reality. Today, that shared reality has evaporated. We live in parallel universes of "truth," each side convinced not just of their own righteousness, but of the other's moral depravity. This isn't just a breakdown of civility; it's a feature, not a bug, of our current political and media landscape.
In our ongoing exploration of America’s fractured political landscape, we’ve dissected the structural flaws that perpetuate dysfunction, from the distorting effects of closed partisan primaries that fuel polarization (as detailed in Chapter 1.11) to the media’s role in eroding shared truths and trust (Chapter 2.6), and the broader rigging of the system by entrenched interests to maintain the status quo (Chapter 4.7).
These mechanisms don’t operate in a vacuum; they’re amplified by deep-seated psychological tendencies that make us all susceptible to viewing our political tribe as the embodiment of virtue and the opposition as a force of moral decay.
I was inspired to write this chapter after listening to Simon Sinek’s reflections on how even the most villainous figures in history believe they are moral and just.
In that commentary, he uses Colonel Hans Landa, the Nazi officer portrayed by Christoph Waltz in Inglourious Basterds as his proxy. He points out how even the most hated of villains see themselves as dedicated heroes fighting for a just cause. This chapter delves into the psychology of morality in U.S. domestic politics and how the Democratic-Republican duopoly exploits this human wiring to divide us, entrench power, and stifle real progress, all while building on our blog’s core ethos: breaking out of echo chambers by scrutinizing our own assumptions first.
The Psychology of Our Engineered Divide
Behind the profit motives of modern politics lies a sophisticated exploitation of human psychology. Political strategists and media producers, whether they consciously consult academic theories or simply learn what "works," have become masters at triggering our innate biases. By crafting messages that hit deep moral chords, parties mobilize their base with an emotional intensity that transcends mere policy preference.
At the heart of this phenomenon is a cluster of cognitive biases and mechanisms that psychologists have studied for decades. Albert Bandura’s theory of moral disengagement explains how individuals and groups rationalize harmful actions by reframing them as morally justified, through tactics like dehumanizing opponents (labeling them “extremists” or “radicals”), diffusing responsibility (“It’s the system’s fault”), or sanctifying violence as a necessary defense of higher values. In politics, this manifests as both sides convincing themselves that their policies aren’t just practical but ethically imperative. For instance, liberals might disengage from the economic burdens of certain regulations by viewing corporate resistance as greedy obstructionism, while conservatives justify deregulation by portraying government overreach as an assault on freedom.
Complementing this is cognitive dissonance theory, first developed by Leon Festinger (1957) and later popularized by Carol Tavris and Elliot Aronson in Mistakes Were Made (But Not by Me). When our actions or beliefs clash with reality, say, supporting a party leader embroiled in scandal, we reduce the discomfort by doubling down on justifications, escalating our commitment to the “good fight.” This self-justification loop turns political loyalty into a moral crusade, where admitting flaws in one’s side feels like betrayal.
Jonathan Haidt’s The Righteous Mind takes it further with moral foundations theory, arguing that humans intuitively prioritize different values. These foundations “bind” us to our groups but “blind” us to others’ perspectives, creating an illusion of moral superiority. This moral framework is actively exploited by political actors. The purity/sanctity foundation is weaponized in cultural debates, where issues like public health mandates are framed as an assault on personal autonomy, or environmental regulations are seen as a moral duty. The authority/respect foundation is central to arguments about supporting law enforcement or questioning the authority of public institutions.
Beyond these individual moral frameworks, we’re also influenced by Social Identity Theory, pioneered by Henri Tajfel and John Turner. This theory explains that our sense of self-worth is deeply tied to the groups we belong to. When a political party becomes a core part of our identity, any criticism of that party can feel like a personal attack. This explains why many people are so quick to defend their political tribe, even in the face of contradictory evidence; it’s not just a defense of a policy, but a defense of their own self-concept.
By limiting viable choices to two extremes, the system incentivizes moral posturing over nuanced solutions, trapping voters in a cycle of righteous indignation.
The Political Economy of Outrage
The most potent fuel for our engineered divide isn't ideology; it's outrage. And in today's media and political fundraising ecosystems, outrage is the ultimate currency.
The Fragmented Media Machine:
Media ecosystems, as explored in Chapter 2.6, amplify this: Fox News and MSNBC create echo chambers where viewers’ self-righteousness is constantly validated, with algorithms prioritizing outrage to boost engagement. Think back to the era of three major network news channels. While imperfect, they often operated within a framework of shared journalistic standards and a common baseline of facts. Today? That's gone. We inhabit a fragmented media landscape—from hyper-partisan cable news to algorithmic social media feeds and niche podcasts, all competing for our attention.
The business model of these outlets, particularly online, is built on engagement. What drives engagement most effectively? Strong emotions: fear, anger, and moral indignation. This creates an undeniable financial incentive to:
Moralize every issue: Transform nuanced policy debates into clear-cut battles between good and evil.
Demonize the opposition: Frame political opponents not as misguided, but as malicious or fundamentally un-American.
Prioritize sensationalism: Facts take a back seat to stories that provoke the strongest emotional response.
When an algorithm learns that an article or video attacking the "other side" with moralistic fervor keeps you scrolling, it will feed you more of it. Your outrage, perfectly measurable in clicks and watch time, translates directly into ad revenue.
Consider this recent “hit” piece published in the Nation entitled “Vile Grifters Are Taking Over Establishment Media” about a report that Paramount was in the process of purchasing Bari Weiss’ The Free Press which states:
Twenty years ago, as a student at Columbia, she led a racist smear campaign against Arab professors who had the audacity to criticize Israel. As a New York Times columnist, she constantly hawked right-wing bile while posing as a liberal who was just tired of all the extremism and censorship on the left—a tedious bait-and-switch that nevertheless sent her media profile soaring. And, as founder and editor of The Free Press, she has pushed genocide denial, transphobia, and the freedom to make Nazi salutes.
If we lived in a less terrible time and place, Weiss would be dismissed as a crank and a bigot, and never heard from again. But we live in the waking nightmare that is the United States in 2025. So instead Weiss is being rewarded with a prize that even she must think is kind of wild.
This isn’t just critique—it’s a moral condemnation meant to inflame, casting Weiss as evil to rally the left. Conservative outlets do the same, branding liberal figures as “commies” or “groomers.” These aren’t arguments; they’re algorithmic outrage traps, profiting off clicks while deepening our divide.
The Fear-Driven Fundraising Machine:
Consider fundraising: both sides thrive on fear-mongering emails that paint the opposition as an existential threat—Democrats warning of “fascist” rollbacks on rights, Republicans decrying “socialist” assaults on American values. This taps into our innate “binding and blinding,” turning donations into moral imperatives. Political parties, have perfected the art of profiting from this engineered divide. Open your email inbox during election season, and you'll find a torrent of messages designed to trigger your deepest moral fears:
"DEMOCRACY IS AT STAKE! The fascists are coming for your rights! Donate NOW!"
"SOCIALISTS ARE DESTROYING AMERICA! They will take your freedom and ruin your family! Contribute IMMEDIATELY!"
These appeals turn political contributions into an urgent act of moral defense. It's no longer about supporting a candidate's policy platform; it's about joining a righteous crusade to save the nation from an existential threat. This constant drumbeat of moral alarm further entrenches the "moral mirage," where one's own side is inherently virtuous and the opposition is irredeemably evil.
Campaign consultants, armed with data from focus groups and social media analytics, craft messages that exploit Haidt’s moral foundations or Tajfel’s group identity triggers. They know fear and outrage keep voters loyal and donations flowing, so they paint every election as a moral apocalypse.
The Electoral System: A Duopoly-Designed Trap
These psychological vulnerabilities are magnified by an electoral system designed to perpetuate division rather than foster consensus. Consider some of the ways that the Duopoly has “rigged” the system towards this end.
Closed, partisan primaries are arguably one of the most damaging structural problems. They force candidates to appeal only to the most ideologically extreme and morally motivated segments of their own party's base, rather than the broader, more moderate general electorate. This system actively rewards moral grandstanding and uncompromising stances, punishing any hint of moderation or willingness to cooperate across the aisle. Why compromise when your political survival depends on appeasing the most extreme voices in your own narrow primary?
Partisan gerrymandering doesn’t just create “safe” districts; it constructs ideological bubbles where voters are surrounded by people who think and vote like them, insulating communities from competing perspectives and removing any incentive for elected representatives to compromise. This moral and geographic segregation has long been evident in places like North Carolina, where the Brennan Center for Justice has documented extreme partisan maps that make districts virtually immune to challenge. More recently, the battle lines have sharpened. In Texas, Republicans pushed through a mid-decade redistricting plan, an unusual move outside the normal census cycle, that could deliver them several additional congressional seats by diluting Democratic strongholds in cities like Austin, Houston, and Dallas. Democrats decried it as a naked power grab, even staging walkouts to delay the vote, while civil rights groups launched lawsuits alleging violations of the Voting Rights Act. On the other side of the country, California Governor Gavin Newsom and legislative Democrats responded with their own controversial maneuver: backing Proposition 50, a ballot measure that would sidestep the state’s independent redistricting commission and authorize a legislature-drawn map tilted in their favor through 2030. Supporters frame it as a necessary counterpunch to Texas, while critics warn it abandons California’s commitment to nonpartisan reform and risks normalizing partisan gerrymandering nationwide. Taken together, these dueling efforts reveal how both parties now justify map manipulation as a moral necessity, defending democracy by bending its rules, and in doing so, deepen the very divisions they claim to correct.
The winner-takes-all structure of single-member districts and first-past-the-post (FPTP) voting is a cornerstone of the duopoly’s grip, forcing voters into a binary choice that amplifies moral polarization and stifles diverse voices. In this system, only one candidate per district wins, regardless of vote share, and the candidate with the most votes (even if only a plurality) takes all, sidelining third parties and independents who might dilute the Democratic-Republican stranglehold. Data from FairVote shows that FPTP distorts outcomes, with 83% of U.S. House seats in 2022 decided by margins that ignored minority voices, entrenching the duopoly’s ability to exploit moral foundations like loyalty (GOP) or care (Democrats), as Jonathan Haidt’s research highlights. Both parties benefit by suppressing alternatives, ensuring campaigns focus on demonizing opponents rather than offering nuanced solutions. This system, as Shanto Iyengar’s work on affective polarization suggests, turns elections into moral crusades, where voting for a third party feels like “wasting” a vote on principle, further entrenching the duopoly’s power and the divisions it thrives on.
The campaign finance system, built on unlimited donations and lax oversight, fuels the duopoly’s exploitation of moral outrage, turning elections into high-stakes moral crusades that deepen division. Both parties rely on fear-mongering appeals, emails warning of “fascist” takeovers or “socialist” destruction, to extract billions from donors, leveraging psychological triggers like Jonathan Haidt’s moral foundations (e.g., loyalty for Republicans, care for Democrats) to frame giving as a righteous act. This system disincentivizes compromise—why seek common ground when outrage pays? By rewarding moral grandstanding, campaign finance entrenches the duopoly’s grip, marginalizing third parties (who raised just 2% of 2024 funds) and ensuring elections prioritize emotional division over evidence-based solutions, as William Galston’s Brookings analysis (2012) underscores.
The result is that the political industrial complex has created affective polarization, a term coined by political scientists like Shanto Iyengar. Affective polarization, as Shanto Iyengar describes, is like rooting for rival sports teams, but instead of cheering for your side, you hate the other team’s fans so much you’d rather burn the stadium down than share it.
This isn't just about disagreeing on policy; it's about actively disliking, distrusting, and even dehumanizing people in the "other" political party. While ideological differences have always existed, what's truly tearing us apart today is this escalating animosity.
The result? Polarization that benefits the duopoly by discouraging third-party challenges and keeping turnout skewed toward energized bases. A 2021 Pew Research Center study, for example, found large shares of both Democrats and Republicans hold very negative views of the opposing party, highlighting this growing animosity.
On key flashpoints like abortion1, gun control2, and immigration3, both parties use this divide to mobilize voters without seeking middle-ground solutions. Both sides feel profoundly righteous, yet the duopoly uses this moral framing to gerrymander districts, rig primaries, and block bipartisan bills, ensuring the conflict persists for electoral gain. The duopoly’s grip means that solutions languish, as stalemates serve their interests: rallying the base around moral purity rather than pragmatic fixes.
Even economic issues, like capitalism vs. socialism (touched on in our post “Can You Define Socialism?” and in the context of Trump’s Intel deal), fall prey: one side sees market freedoms as moral engines of opportunity, the other as exploitative systems demanding ethical intervention. As William Galston’s Brookings analysis on polarization and democratic dysfunction suggests, this stems from a process that rewards moral grandstanding over evidence-based policy. Taxes become moral battlegrounds. Progressives frame tax hikes on the wealthy as fairness, righting systemic wrongs. Conservatives see them as theft, punishing success and violating liberty. Both sides wield Bandura’s moral disengagement, casting opponents as greedy elites or lazy freeloaders, ensuring no room for pragmatic compromise.
Religion’s role, as discussed in Chapter 2.5, adds fuel: the duopoly co-opts faith-based moral narratives, with evangelicals predominantly aligning with Republicans on sanctity issues, and many progressive religious traditions aligning with Democrats on social justice, further entrenching self-righteousness. The Constitution’s framers, per Chapter 2.3, designed checks to mitigate such factions, but today’s system has warped them into tools for division.
The Democratic and Republican parties aren’t passive observers; they actively leverage these psychological levers to maintain dominance.
Breaking the Cycle: From Moral Certainty to Pragmatic Humility
To dismantle this moral warfare, we must starve the duopoly’s outrage machine.
As we’ve emphasized throughout these pages, from the foundational problems in Chapter 1.9, to unrigging strategies in Chapter 4.7, the path forward demands we apply the same scrutiny to our own moral intuitions that we do to others’. It’s easy to nod along with Sinek’s insight in abstract conflicts, but in domestic politics, it requires uncomfortable reflection: What if my side’s “fairness” is just a veil for bias? We must demand transparency in how morality is weaponized.
So, what's the path forward? It requires a multi-faceted approach, demanding both individual self-awareness and systemic reform.
Change the Incentives: We must push for electoral reforms that dilute the power of extreme partisans and reward broader appeal. Support reforms such as:
Open Primaries. Allowing all voters to participate, regardless of party affiliation.
Ranked-choice voting. Encouraging candidates to appeal to a wider base to earn second and third-place votes, fostering more moderate politics) that dilute the duopoly’s hold.
Independent Redistricting Commissions. Taking the power to draw electoral maps out of the hands of partisan politicians. According to a 2021 analysis by the Brennan Center for Justice, extreme gerrymandering in states like North Carolina has led to districts that are largely immune to challenge from the opposing party. This, combined with low-turnout primaries, ensures that candidates have no incentive to appeal to the political middle.This includes.
Campaign Finance Reform.
Curate Your Information Ecosystem: As individuals, we must actively resist the algorithms. Diversify your media diet. Seek out sources from different perspectives beyond echo chambers, not to agree, but to understand. Engage with nuance, not just outrage by engaging in perspective-taking exercises (imagining the “other side’s” moral rationale).
Reclaim Pragmatic Humility: The ultimate goal is to shift from a politics of moral certainty to one of pragmatic humility. This doesn't mean abandoning our values. Instead, it means acknowledging that reasonable people can, and do, arrive at different conclusions about how those values should be applied. It means recognizing the "moral mirage" in ourselves first.
The true strength of a democracy isn't the absence of conflict, but its ability to engage in that conflict without devolving into mutual contempt and an inability to solve problems. Our current system is designed to profit from moral warfare. It's time to disarm it.
In reclaiming fairness, we don’t abandon our values, we strengthen them by acknowledging their subjectivity. Only then can we build a politics where morality unites rather than divides.
As my post on the Trump assassination attempt reminded us in Ch 4.9 | It's never too late to act, unchecked self-righteousness can escalate to violence. It’s never too late to act with humility.
What are your thoughts—have you caught yourself in this moral mirage?
Share and comment, and let’s continue the conversation.
Take abortion as a domestic flashpoint that I discuss in Chapter 3.6. Progressives frame it through the lens of care and autonomy, viewing restrictions as patriarchal oppression that harms women, a moral outrage against bodily rights. Conservatives, drawing on sanctity and loyalty to life, see abortion as the ultimate violation, equating it to murder and justifying extreme measures as protective heroism. Both sides feel profoundly righteous, yet the duopoly uses this divide to mobilize voters without seeking middle-ground reforms, like expanded prenatal support, that could address underlying concerns.
On gun control as I discussed in Chapter 3.1: liberals decry inaction as complicity in harm (school shootings as moral failures), while conservatives uphold Second Amendment rights as a sacred bulwark against tyranny. The parties exploit these moral framings to gerrymander districts, rig primaries (as in Chapter 1.11), and block bipartisan bills, ensuring the conflict persists for electoral gain.
Immigration offers another lens as discussed here in 2023 and revisited here in 2025 with the benefit of hindsight. Democrats often moralize border policies as compassionate defenses against xenophobia, while Republicans justify strict enforcement as upholding fairness and security for citizens. Each side dehumanizes the other as “heartless” vs. “lawless,” echoing Bandura’s mechanisms.