Nations Watching, Leaders Mocking

The Psychology of Political Cruelty

On the global stage, where war and human suffering should command the deepest levels of empathy, political leaders in the United States instead turned to mockery. Standing before cameras, they ridiculed Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy for not wearing a suit — a man whose country is being torn apart by war, whose people are dying, and whose focus is on survival rather than decorum. The derision was not subtle; it was intentional, performative, and designed to elicit a reaction. But what does that moment tell us; not just about the men who engaged in the ridicule, but about the society that elects, tolerates, or even celebrates such behavior?

Political cruelty is not a new phenomenon, but it has evolved into something more pervasive and strategic. The public humiliation of perceived opponents, whether foreign leaders, political adversaries, or marginalized groups, has become a staple of modern political theater. It is not simply a matter of personal attacks; it is a calculated spectacle, carefully staged to consolidate power, deepen division, and rally supporters.

The most unsettling part of this phenomenon is not just the existence of political cruelty, it is the audience’s response. Some recoil in horror, while others laugh, cheer, or justify the behavior. Social media explodes with reactions, some condemning the mockery, others amplifying it, and still others dismissing it as “just politics.” The question we must ask is: Why?

Why do leaders resort to mockery rather than meaningful discourse? Why do people accept or even reward these tactics? And what happens to a society when cruelty becomes an expected and tolerated feature of public life?

This article will explore the psychology of political cruelty, examining why leaders engage in public humiliation, why portions of the electorate tolerate or embrace it, and the deeper implications for democracy and social cohesion. To understand where we are today, we must confront the uncomfortable reality that political theater is not just about those in power, it is about the audience, too.

The Psychology of Public Humiliation in Politics

Political cruelty is not just a reflection of individual temperament; it is a deliberate strategy rooted in psychological and social dynamics. Leaders who engage in public mockery are not acting impulsively, they are leveraging well-established principles of human behavior to consolidate power, manipulate emotions, and distract from substantive issues. Understanding why mockery and humiliation are so effective in politics requires an exploration of dominance, dehumanization, and the authoritarian impulse.

Why Do Leaders Engage in Mockery?

Public humiliation serves multiple strategic functions for political figures. At its core, it is about power: who has it, who can wield it, and who can be diminished in the eyes of the public.

• Establishing Dominance
  In competitive social environments, individuals use displays of strength, both physical and verbal, to assert control. Political leaders who engage in mockery are performing dominance, signaling to their supporters that they are unafraid to challenge, ridicule, or belittle those they perceive as weak. This aligns with social dominance theory, which suggests that individuals and groups compete for status through hierarchical positioning. Public mockery reinforces the idea that the leader is the superior figure, while the target is weak, laughable, or unworthy of respect.

• Deflection and Distraction
  Ridicule is also a powerful tool of deflection. When substantive issues demand attention: economic crises, foreign policy failures, scandals, leaders who rely on mockery can shift the conversation away from accountability. By turning the focus toward an opponent’s clothing, speech patterns, or perceived inferiority, they ensure that the spectacle dominates media coverage rather than the real problems at hand.

• Emotional Manipulation and Crowd Psychology
  Political figures understand that emotions drive public perception more than facts. When they mock an opponent, they provoke strong reactions; anger from their critics, laughter from their supporters, and disengagement from those exhausted by the spectacle. This tactic is rooted in the psychology of tribalism: when a leader ridicules an adversary, supporters experience a sense of group unity and shared superiority. The crowd’s response reinforces the leader’s behavior, creating a feedback loop where cruelty is not only tolerated but rewarded.

The Role of Dehumanization in Political Strategy

One of the most insidious aspects of public humiliation in politics is its reliance on dehumanization, the psychological process of viewing others as less than fully human. Leaders who mock opponents do not just insult them; they strip them of dignity and portray them as fundamentally lesser.

Psychologists like Albert Bandura and Philip Zimbardo have studied the mechanisms of dehumanization, showing how it enables moral disengagement. When a group is repeatedly ridiculed or reduced to caricature, it becomes easier for the public to view them as undeserving of empathy or fair treatment. This process is dangerous because it lays the groundwork for more extreme forms of mistreatment, whether through exclusion, suppression, or outright violence.

Framing Opponents as Weak or Unworthy
By mocking Zelenskyy’s appearance rather than addressing his message, American political figures signaled to their supporters that he was not to be taken seriously. This tactic is frequently used against marginalized groups, political rivals, and activists, reducing their credibility by focusing on superficial traits rather than their ideas.

The Psychological Comfort of Dehumanization
Dehumanization also serves a psychological function for the audience. When a leader mocks an opponent, supporters experience a cognitive shift that allows them to disregard the opponent’s humanity. If a person is framed as laughable or weak, there is no moral obligation to consider their suffering or perspective. This process makes cruelty easier to accept and even enjoy.

Mockery as a Tool of Authoritarianism

History provides ample examples of how authoritarian leaders use mockery and public humiliation to consolidate power. Figures like Mussolini, Stalin, and more contemporary strongmen have relied on ridicule to discredit opponents, delegitimize dissent, and reinforce their own dominance.

The Erosion of Norms
In democratic societies, there are unspoken agreements about political decorum: respectful disagreement, civil debate, and acknowledgment of shared humanity. When leaders consistently violate these norms through mockery, they erode the expectations of leadership itself. Over time, what was once considered unacceptable becomes routine.

The Psychological Appeal of ‘Strong’ Leadership
Many people equate aggression with strength. Leaders who engage in public humiliation create the illusion of power, positioning themselves as fighters who “tell it like it is.” This can be especially appealing during periods of social or economic instability, when people crave strong leadership and simple solutions.

The use of public mockery in politics is not just a reflection of individual character flaws; it is a calculated strategy with deep psychological underpinnings. Leaders who engage in this behavior understand that humiliation is not just about the person being mocked, it is about the audience watching. And the real question is: why do so many people accept, tolerate, or even cheer for it? That answer lies in the psychology of the electorate itself.

Why Does Society Tolerate (or Even Reward) Political Cruelty?

Political cruelty does not persist in a vacuum. It is tolerated, justified, and in some cases, celebrated by portions of the public. If mockery and humiliation were universally condemned, they would lose their political utility. Instead, these behaviors thrive, not because they are inherently persuasive, but because they tap into deep-seated psychological and social mechanisms. From group identity and loyalty to media amplification and cognitive dissonance, political cruelty is reinforced by forces that shape how individuals perceive leadership, morality, and power.

Social Identity Theory and the ‘Us vs. Them’ Mentality

At the heart of political cruelty is the psychology of group identity. Henri Tajfel’s Social Identity Theory explains that people derive a sense of self from the groups to which they belong. Political affiliation is not merely about policy preferences; for many, it is a core component of identity. This attachment leads to in-group favoritism (support for one’s own political party or leader) and out-group hostility (viewing opposing groups with suspicion or contempt).

Mockery strengthens this division by turning political opponents into objects of ridicule rather than people with differing perspectives.

Emotional Investment in Political Leaders
Supporters of political figures often feel a personal connection to them, seeing them as protectors of their values, way of life, or economic interests. When a leader mocks an opponent, supporters may experience it as a defensive act on their behalf — a strike against those who threaten their worldview.

Mockery as a Tool for Group Cohesion
Public humiliation serves a tribal function by uniting supporters in a shared experience of superiority. Laughter and derision create an emotional bond, reinforcing the idea that “we” are strong, while “they” are weak, foolish, or illegitimate.

The Enemy as a Unifying Force
Leaders who rely on cruelty understand that a common enemy, whether a political opponent, foreign leader, or marginalized group, can unify their base. By reducing opponents to objects of scorn, they make opposition to them seem not only rational but enjoyable.

The Role of Media in Amplifying Cruelty

While political mockery has always existed, modern media and technology have transformed it into a viral spectacle. Traditional media outlets, social media platforms, and alternative news sources all contribute to its spread, often because cruelty is profitable.

Sensationalism and Clickbait Culture
Outrage, mockery, and humiliation generate clicks, views, and revenue. News organizations, whether intentionally or not, amplify these moments by covering them extensively, often focusing on the drama rather than the substance. The more controversial a leader’s statement, the more attention it garners.

Social Media and the Gamification of Cruelty
Platforms like Twitter, Facebook, and TikTok turn political discourse into a competition for engagement. A cruel remark from a leader is clipped, shared, and debated in an endless cycle of reaction and counterreaction. Political cruelty becomes entertainment, shaping public perception in the process.

Algorithmic Reinforcement
Social media algorithms reward engagement, not integrity. The more inflammatory or polarizing the content, the more likely it is to be pushed to wider audiences. As a result, mockery spreads faster than reasoned debate.

Cognitive Dissonance and Moral Justifications

Many people who would ordinarily reject cruelty in their personal lives make exceptions for political leaders they support. This is often due to cognitive dissonance, the psychological discomfort that arises when a person holds contradictory beliefs or values.

The Justification of Cruelty
When a favored leader engages in public mockery, supporters must reconcile the behavior with their own self-perception as ethical individuals. Rather than rejecting the leader, they reinterpret the cruelty: “It’s just a joke.” “He’s speaking the truth.” “His opponents deserve it.” This moral disengagement allows people to tolerate behavior they would otherwise find unacceptable.

The Psychological Comfort of Aligning with Strength
Some supporters view political cruelty as a sign of power and confidence. In uncertain times, many people gravitate toward leaders who display dominance, even at the expense of decorum. There is a psychological comfort in believing that one’s chosen leader is strong enough to “fight back,” even if that fight takes the form of mockery rather than policy.

Selective Outrage and Partisan Bias
Many people condemn cruelty only when it comes from their opponents while excusing it when their own side engages in it. This selective application of moral standards reinforces a cycle of escalating incivility, where each instance of mockery justifies the next.

The Tolerance of Cruelty as a Reflection of Society

The existence of political cruelty is not just about individual leaders; it is about the societal conditions that allow it to thrive. When public mockery is accepted, encouraged, or rewarded, it tells us something about the values being reinforced. If cruelty becomes the norm in leadership, it is not just a reflection of those in power, it is a reflection of what the public is willing to tolerate.

But just as society has normalized political cruelty, it can also reject it. The question is whether we will continue to treat humiliation as entertainment, or whether we will demand a higher standard and articulation of leadership.

The Consequences of Normalizing Cruelty

Political mockery is not just a fleeting moment of incivility, it is a force that reshapes the very fabric of political and social life. When cruelty is accepted as a legitimate tool of leadership, it has far-reaching consequences, eroding civic discourse, fostering aggression in everyday interactions, and weakening democratic institutions. The normalization of public humiliation does not simply reflect existing cultural divides; it deepens them, making cooperation and problem-solving increasingly difficult.

The Erosion of Civic Discourse

Politics, at its best, is the process by which a society resolves conflicts, negotiates differences, and works toward collective progress. When mockery becomes a dominant political strategy, this essential function is undermined.

The Shift from Policy to Performance
In a political landscape dominated by ridicule, substance is overshadowed by spectacle. Leaders who prioritize humiliation over discussion do not need to defend policies or articulate solutions; instead, they need only entertain, provoke, and inflame. This shift turns governance into a performance, where winning an exchange — either through wit, cruelty, or sheer audacity — becomes more important than addressing real issues.

The Decline of Meaningful Debate
The elevation of mockery transforms political discourse into personal attack. Rather than debating policy differences, leaders focus on ridiculing their opponents’ intelligence, appearance, or mannerisms. Over time, this degrades public expectations of what political discussion should be, making thoughtful engagement seem weak or irrelevant in comparison to performative dominance.

The Ripple Effect on Public Behavior
When public figures engage in mockery, they send a social signal that ridicule is an acceptable form of discourse. This behavior trickles down into communities, workplaces, and schools, where civility is replaced by confrontation, and disagreement is met with personal attack rather than dialogue.

The Psychological Impact on the Public

The normalization of cruelty in politics does not just affect those directly targeted , it affects everyone who witnesses and internalizes it. Over time, constant exposure to mockery in leadership fosters aggression, apathy, and resignation.

The Spread of Incivility
Psychological research shows that when people are repeatedly exposed to aggressive or demeaning behavior, they are more likely to imitate it in their own interactions. Political leaders set cultural norms, and when those norms reward mockery, everyday discourse becomes more hostile. This can be seen in everything from online interactions to workplace dynamics, where incivility spreads like a contagion.

The Rise of Political Apathy
For many, the relentless hostility of modern political discourse is exhausting. Instead of engaging in the process, individuals disengage, seeing politics as a toxic arena where cruelty dominates and meaningful progress seems impossible. This leads to voter apathy, withdrawal from civic discussions, and a sense of powerlessness that only strengthens the cycle of incivility.

The Psychological Toll of a Toxic Political Environment
Studies on stress and media exposure show that constant political hostility can lead to increased anxiety, anger, and emotional fatigue. The omnipresence of political mockery, amplified by social media, creates a climate where people feel perpetually under siege, leading some to lash out and others to retreat into cynicism or despair.

The Long-Term Consequences for Democracy

While political mockery may seem like a form of entertainment or rhetorical gamesmanship, its long-term effects pose a serious threat to democratic stability. When leadership is reduced to spectacle, trust in institutions erodes, and the path toward authoritarianism becomes clearer.

The Decline of Institutional Trust
Democracies rely on public trust in governance, elections, and institutions. When leaders use ridicule as a weapon, they contribute to the perception that politics is a corrupt, unserious spectacle. This disillusionment weakens democratic engagement, as people lose faith in the system’s ability to address their concerns.

The Culture of Humiliation as a Gateway to Authoritarianism
Historically, authoritarian leaders have used mockery and public humiliation to weaken democratic norms. By discrediting opponents, the media, and democratic institutions through derision, they create a political environment where respect, fairness, and accountability are seen as weaknesses. In such a culture, the leader alone is seen as powerful, while everyone else — opponents, intellectuals, journalists, and even allies — becomes fair game for scorn. Over time, public engagement is replaced by passive spectatorship, where people either cheer or disengage, leaving real decision-making to those who wield power with impunity.

The Slow Degradation of a Democratic Society

The spectacle of political cruelty does not destroy democracy overnight. It erodes it gradually, by lowering expectations, fostering cynicism, and normalizing a leadership style that values domination over discourse. A society that tolerates mockery as a substitute for governance will find itself governed not by ideas, but by those who perform power most ruthlessly.

If mockery and humiliation continue to define political culture, the consequences will not be limited to those in power. They will reshape the way people engage with one another, eroding trust, increasing hostility, and making democratic institutions weaker in the face of authoritarian tendencies. The question is: At what point do we decide that enough is enough?

How Do We Push Back Against Political Cruelty?

The normalization of political cruelty is not an inevitability, it is a choice. When mockery becomes a standard feature of leadership, it is because society allows it, tolerates it, or even rewards it. Changing this reality requires both individual and collective action, a shift in what is expected from those in power, and a conscious effort to resist emotional manipulation. It requires a commitment to integrity, a refusal to be entertained by humiliation, and a recognition that leadership should be measured by competence, not cruelty.

Pushing back against this trend begins with raising the standard for leadership. A leader’s role is not to belittle or humiliate but to govern with responsibility and intelligence. Ethical leadership is not about dominance through ridicule but about the ability to engage with opponents without resorting to personal attacks. The public plays a critical role in shaping this standard. When leaders use mockery as a political tool, the response they receive determines whether they will continue. If they are met with applause, laughter, or indifference, they are emboldened to continue. If they are met with public rejection, their tactics lose power. Holding leaders accountable for their rhetoric is not just about criticizing their behavior but about refusing to normalize it. If mockery is treated as an acceptable feature of leadership, it will persist. But if it is rejected as a sign of weakness rather than strength, it will lose its effectiveness.

Resisting political cruelty also requires an awareness of how it functions as emotional manipulation. Leaders who use mockery do so deliberately, understanding that it provokes strong reactions. For those who support them, it fosters a sense of superiority and group cohesion. For those who oppose them, it creates anger and outrage, often consuming attention and energy that could be directed toward substantive issues. Recognizing this manipulation allows for a more thoughtful response. Instead of reacting impulsively, people can step back, analyze the intent behind the behavior, and refuse to be drawn into the spectacle. Media literacy plays an essential role in this process. The way political cruelty spreads, through sensationalized headlines, viral clips, and social media debates, creates an environment where mockery is amplified far beyond its actual significance. Understanding how media incentives reward cruelty over constructive discourse can help individuals engage more critically with political coverage, focusing on policy and governance rather than theatrical displays of power.

The most powerful tool against political cruelty is the vote. Leadership is ultimately a reflection of the electorate’s values, and the people who gain power are those who appeal to the desires of the voting public. If cruelty is rewarded at the ballot box, it will persist. But if voters make it clear that mockery and humiliation are disqualifying traits rather than appealing ones, political incentives will shift. This means actively supporting candidates who engage in meaningful discourse rather than performative cruelty, who demonstrate emotional regulation rather than impulsive aggression, and who focus on solutions rather than personal attacks. Changing the political landscape requires an intentional decision to value integrity over spectacle, to look beyond rhetoric and consider whether a candidate’s actions align with the principles necessary for effective governance.

Political cruelty only thrives when it is tolerated. It exists because it serves a purpose, drawing attention, solidifying power, and distracting from substantive issues. But that power is entirely dependent on public response. If cruelty ceases to serve a political advantage, it will disappear. The responsibility lies not just with leaders but with those who engage with, consume, and react to political discourse. Reclaiming dignity in politics begins with rejecting the notion that mockery is strength and recognizing that true leadership is defined not by the ability to humiliate, but by the ability to lead with intelligence, character, and respect.

What the Spectacle of Cruelty Says About Us — And What We Can Do About It

Political cruelty is not just about the individuals who engage in it, it is about the society that reacts to it. Every instance of public mockery in leadership serves as a psychological mirror, reflecting the cultural norms, emotional triggers, and collective values that allow it to persist. It is easy to place blame solely on politicians who weaponize humiliation for power, but their success depends on an audience willing to accept it, participate in it, or passively allow it. Political cruelty thrives not because it is inevitable, but because it exploits deeply ingrained psychological tendencies: tribalism, emotional reactivity, and the human tendency to seek power through dominance rather than cooperation.

At its core, this phenomenon is a test of what people value in leadership. Do we seek out figures who display wisdom, emotional regulation, and intellectual depth, or do we gravitate toward those who entertain us with aggression, mockery, and spectacle? Research in social psychology suggests that people often mistake dominance for strength, viewing aggressive and humiliating rhetoric as a sign of confidence rather than insecurity. This perception is reinforced in times of uncertainty, when individuals are more likely to seek leaders who project control, even at the expense of decency. But the consequences of rewarding such behavior are clear: an erosion of civic discourse, an increase in social division, and a weakening of democracy itself.

From a psychological perspective, political cruelty is also an exercise in conditioning. When exposed to repeated acts of mockery in leadership, people become desensitized to it, seeing it as normal, expected, or even justified. This is the same process that occurs in abusive environments: what was once shocking eventually becomes routine. The normalization of cruelty lowers the collective threshold for what is considered unacceptable, leading to a culture where humiliation is mistaken for wit, where degradation is reframed as authenticity, and where public discourse is reduced to a performance of dominance rather than an exchange of ideas.

If this trend is to change, it must begin with awareness — an understanding that political cruelty is not merely an issue of civility, but one with profound psychological consequences. Every act of public humiliation by a leader sends a message about what is acceptable in society, shaping how people interact with one another, how they treat perceived opponents, and how they define leadership itself. The antidote to this is deliberate choice. A refusal to reward cruelty, a conscious effort to reject emotional manipulation, and an insistence on demanding more from those in power.

Ultimately, the question we must ask is not just why certain political figures engage in cruelty, but why society tolerates, engages with, or even celebrates it. Do we accept a political environment driven by humiliation and dominance, or do we demand something better? The answer lies in what we choose to reward, to tolerate, and to reject. Psychology teaches us that behavior is shaped by reinforcement: what is encouraged continues, and what is denied fades. If the spectacle of political cruelty continues to define leadership, it is because we have allowed it. If it ends, it will be because enough people decided that leadership should be built on intelligence and integrity rather than mockery and manipulation.