Dr. Marcus Bennett
Political Psychology 405 | Spring Semester 2025
Today we'll examine a fascinating case study in political psychology: the tension between the progressive wing of American politics, led by figures like Senator Bernie Sanders and Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, and the Democratic Party establishment.
This relationship illustrates numerous psychological principles that shape political movements, group identity, and intergroup conflict. By analyzing these dynamics, we can better understand not just this specific political situation, but broader patterns in how political movements form, evolve, and sometimes fracture.
At the most fundamental level, we're witnessing a classic psychological process of identity formation through differentiation. Sanders' movement defines itself explicitly in opposition to what he terms "the fossilized section of the Democratic Party."
This psychological principle suggests that groups and individuals seek to balance two competing needs:
Sanders navigates this tension by simultaneously claiming to "work with Democrats" while building separate infrastructure and criticizing the party's foundation.
This mixed messaging creates cognitive dissonance both within his followers and among mainstream Democrats. Supporters are left to reconcile contradictory signals about whether they should identify primarily as Democrats or as members of a distinct progressive movement.
Sanders employs powerful in-group/out-group framing in his rhetoric. He positions his movement as morally righteous fighters against "oligarchy" while casting Democratic establishment figures as defenders of a "rigged and corrupt economic and political system."
This framing activates the psychological tendency toward moral tribalism - the belief that one's own group is morally superior while the out-group is morally compromised.
The language choices are particularly revealing:
This linguistic pattern strengthens in-group cohesion while heightening the perception of conflict with the out-group. It creates a powerful sense of moral clarity and purpose among supporters.
A more complex psychological dynamic at play is that of psychological ownership. The Democratic establishment demonstrates a sense of ownership over the party's identity, infrastructure, and decision-making processes.
The feeling that something belongs to oneself, creating a sense of responsibility, control, and right to determine its use. This is analogous to parents who have built and maintained a home feeling they have rightful authority over household rules.
In contrast, Sanders and other progressives like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez display territorial behavior by attempting to claim space within the Democratic Party while simultaneously rejecting its authority structures.
By building parallel infrastructure in states like "Nebraska, Iowa, Wisconsin, and Michigan," Sanders is engaging in territorial marking - establishing competing power centers that challenge existing Democratic Party organs.
This creates what psychologists call "territorial conflict" - disputes over ownership and control of valued resources or spaces. The contested territory includes:
Sanders' approach induces a psychological phenomenon called "splitting" among his supporters - the inability to integrate positive and negative aspects of the Democratic Party into a coherent whole.
A defense mechanism where people categorize individuals or institutions as all good or all bad, rather than integrating both positive and negative qualities into a coherent, complex whole.
Instead of seeing the Democratic Party as a complex institution with both strengths and weaknesses, it is portrayed in stark, binary terms as either:
This creates identity confusion among supporters who receive mixed messages about whether they should identify as Democrats or as independents. Sanders explicitly encourages this confusion:
This ambiguity may be strategically useful in maintaining flexibility, but it creates psychological strain for supporters who crave clarity about group boundaries and allegiances.
Sanders employs specific cognitive framing techniques to shape how his supporters perceive political reality. He presents a false dichotomy between defending "a rigged and corrupt economic and political system" versus embracing his "new and bold vision."
A logical fallacy that presents two options as the only possibilities when other alternatives exist. This frame excludes the possibility that incremental reform through Democratic channels might genuinely advance progressive goals.
Such framing activates what psychologists call "black-and-white thinking" - the tendency to see complex situations in simplistic, binary terms.
By portraying Democratic establishment figures this way, Sanders creates a cognitive frame that prevents nuanced evaluation of diverse Democratic approaches to governance.
The relationship between progressives and the Democratic establishment strikingly resembles adolescent-parent dynamics in developmental psychology.
| Democratic "Parents" | Progressive "Adult Children" |
|---|---|
| Built and maintain household infrastructure (party apparatus) | Developed distinct worldviews that clash with "family traditions" |
| Pay most of the mortgage (fundraising and institutional relationships) | Formed own friend groups (supporter bases) outside family circle |
| Developed household management systems (political strategies) | Question household budgeting priorities (economic policies) |
| Prefer gradual home improvements (incremental change) | Bring new decorations into common spaces (changing party messaging) |
Progressive figures like David Hogg, who attempts to "primary out solid blue Democrats," display behaviors analogous to adolescents asserting independence by challenging parental authority.
The Democratic establishment's responses often mirror parental reactions to adolescent rebellion - attempting to maintain control while accommodating some changes to preserve the relationship.
This creates a psychologically complex dynamic where both sides simultaneously need each other (for electoral viability) while wanting independence from each other (to maintain authentic identity).
Sanders' movement provides powerful psychological rewards to supporters by appealing to fundamental human needs for meaning, purpose, and moral clarity.
The study of how humans fulfill their needs for meaning, purpose, and significance, particularly through participation in causes larger than themselves.
By framing political engagement as a "grassroots political revolution" against "oligarchy," Sanders offers supporters a heroic narrative that satisfies psychological needs for significance and moral purpose.
This represents a sophisticated understanding of existential psychology - people's need to feel they are participating in something larger than themselves that aligns with their deepest values.
By contrast, traditional Democratic messaging tends to focus on pragmatic policy achievements and incremental improvements, which provide less psychological satisfaction.
Perhaps the most complex psychological factor at play is Sanders' use of strategic ambiguity. By maintaining an ambiguous relationship with the Democratic Party - sometimes identifying with it, sometimes criticizing it as corrupt - Sanders creates flexibility that serves multiple strategic purposes.
The deliberate use of unclear or ambiguous messaging to maintain flexibility, appeal to diverse audiences, or avoid accountability.
This ambiguity allows Sanders to:
This creates a psychologically manipulative dynamic where the Democratic establishment is perpetually uncertain about how to respond, leading to reactive rather than strategic behavior.
Meanwhile, figures like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez can "look like she is starting her own party" while technically remaining within Democratic structures, creating ongoing identity confusion that serves progressive strategic goals.
Both sides engage in psychological projection and fundamental attribution error when interpreting each other's motivations.
The tendency to attribute others' behaviors to their personal characteristics rather than to situational factors, especially when explaining behaviors of those in opposing groups.
Sanders and his supporters attribute Democratic establishment resistance to moral failings or corruption ("defending a rigged system") rather than to genuine strategic disagreements or different theories of change.
Similarly, Democratic establishment figures attribute progressive challenges to personal ambition or naiveté rather than to legitimate policy disagreements or different constituent priorities.
These attribution errors prevent genuine dialogue by framing disagreements as moral failings rather than as differences in strategy or priorities.
Understanding these psychological dynamics reveals that the current arrangement creates ongoing psychological strain for both movements. The ambiguous relationship between progressives and Democrats satisfies neither group's core psychological needs for coherent identity, clear boundaries, and consistent strategy.
A healthier psychological arrangement would involve either:
Comparable to a young adult moving out while maintaining a positive relationship with parents. Progressives would form their own distinct party with separate funding, organization, and primary processes, while coordinating with Democrats on areas of common interest.
Comparable to family members accepting different roles within a shared household while respecting common rules. Progressives would work fully within Democratic structures but with clearly defined autonomy in certain domains.
Either approach would reduce the current psychological tensions that inhibit effective political action by both groups.
The current dynamic, with figures like Sanders, Hogg, and Ocasio-Cortez existing in an ambiguous relationship with the Democratic Party, creates ongoing psychological tension that ultimately undermines both progressive goals and Democratic electoral success.
Understanding these psychological factors is the first step toward establishing more productive political relationships that could advance shared priorities while respecting legitimate differences.