At a time when elections are won on vibes as much as on vision, understanding the politics of feeling has never been more urgent.From the anger that fuels populist rallies to the hope that animates progressive movements and the anxiety underpinning liberal appeals to stability, emotions are shaping public life as powerfully as policies or parties.
“The Politics of Feeling in Crisis Times: Populism, Progressivism, Liberalism,” a research initiative at King’s College London, steps directly into this volatile terrain. It asks how fear, resentment, pride and solidarity are mobilised in moments of economic uncertainty, pandemic disruption and democratic strain-and what that means for how our societies are governed. By tracing the emotional undercurrents of today’s political clashes,the project aims to illuminate not just what people think about politics,but how they feel it,live it and are moved by it in an age of permanent crisis.
Populism and the Emotional Battle for Democracy in Times of Crisis
Across continents, leaders who claim to speak for “the people” are rewriting the emotional script of politics. Fear of economic decline, anger at distant elites and nostalgia for an imagined past are mobilised as powerful political resources, frequently enough eclipsing detailed policy debate. In moments of uncertainty, resentment, humiliation and moral outrage become the currency of public life, turning televised debates and social media feeds into arenas of affect rather than evidence. These emotions are not accidental side-effects; they are actively curated through slogans, symbols and carefully staged conflict, producing a sense of communal belonging that can feel more convincing than institutional checks, legal norms or constitutional procedure.
- Fear frames migrants, minorities or supranational institutions as existential threats.
- Anger is channelled towards judges, journalists and experts portrayed as enemies of the “real” nation.
- Hope is rebranded as the promise of restoration,not conversion.
- Pride is attached to exclusionary visions of culture and history.
| Emotion | Populist Use | Democratic Challenge |
|---|---|---|
| Fear | Justifies emergency measures | Normalises rule by decree |
| Anger | Targets “corrupt elites” | Delegitimises oversight |
| Belonging | Defines a “true people” | Excludes dissenting voices |
What is at stake is not only who governs, but which emotions are deemed legitimate in public life. When complex crises are distilled into friend-enemy dramas, democratic institutions risk becoming mere backdrops for emotionally charged performances of authenticity. The defense of pluralism, then, requires more than fact-checking: it calls for alternative emotional narratives that make space for vulnerability, solidarity and doubt without surrendering to fatalism.By cultivating forms of political feeling that tolerate disagreement and uncertainty, societies can resist the slide from passionate engagement into permanent conflict, safeguarding democracy’s capacity to absorb shock without collapsing into permanent crisis mode.
Progressive Responses to Fear and Hope From Grassroots Mobilisation to Policy Change
Across contemporary crises, progressive actors are learning to treat emotions not as irrational outbursts to be corrected, but as raw political material to be organised. Rather than shaming fear or romanticising hope, they experiment with community structures that channel both into shared duty. Civil society organisations,neighbourhood assemblies and digital campaigns now increasingly work to translate affect into collective leverage by building spaces where people can name their anxieties about inequality,climate breakdown or democratic decay,and connect them with concrete demands. This involves deliberate practices such as story circles,trauma-informed organising and participatory research,each designed to turn isolated feelings into publicly recognisable grievances. In contrast to populist strategies that often personalise blame, progressive initiatives tend to focus on systems: identifying how housing markets, border regimes or labour laws produce emotional climates of insecurity, and then using that analysis to pressure institutions.
These emotional infrastructures matter because they shape which policies appear thinkable, urgent and legitimate. Progressive movements that succeed in moving from street-level mobilisation to institutional change often deploy a repertoire of tactics:
- Reframing fear as a rational response to structural risk, rather than individual failure.
- Anchoring hope in small, visible wins that demonstrate state responsiveness.
- Building alliances between unions,NGOs and mutual-aid groups to sustain pressure.
- Embedding participation through assemblies, citizens’ juries and digital consultations.
| Emotional Strategy | Grassroots Practice | Policy Outcome |
|---|---|---|
| Fear of precarity | Renters’ unions,debt clinics | Stronger tenant protections |
| Hope in climate justice | Youth strikes,local climate forums | Green jobs and transition plans |
| Anger at exclusion | Anti-racist coalitions | Equalities and anti-discrimination laws |
Liberalism under Pressure How Institutions Can Rebuild Trust and Emotional Resilience
Liberal democracies are discovering that credibility now depends as much on emotional intelligence as on legal frameworks. Beyond policy detail, citizens are watching how institutions listen, respond and repair when things go wrong. Courts, parliaments and public agencies can rebuild confidence by embracing slower, more deliberative forms of politics that give people time and space to process fear, anger and loss. This means designing processes that are as attentive to dignity as they are to efficiency, such as citizen assemblies that sit across multiple weekends, or inquiries that report in plain language rather than technocratic jargon. In this emerging landscape, the most trusted institutions are those that treat emotional life not as a threat to rational debate, but as a resource for more grounded, humane decision-making.
To move from fragile consent to durable trust, liberal institutions are beginning to invest in what might be called the “emotional infrastructure” of democracy. This involves:
- Transparent interaction that acknowledges uncertainty instead of overpromising.
- Participatory forums where conflicting feelings can be aired without ridicule.
- Everyday accessibility-offices, platforms and staff that feel approachable rather than remote.
- Visible accountability when failures occur, including apologies linked to concrete reforms.
| Institutional Practice | Emotional Effect |
|---|---|
| Regular town-hall Q&A | Reduces distance and suspicion |
| Plain-language briefings | Builds clarity and calm |
| Independent review panels | Restores a sense of fairness |
| Community liaison teams | Strengthens local resilience |
From Outrage to Engagement Practical Strategies for Channeling Political Emotions in Public Life
Anger at a broken housing market, fear of climate collapse, exhaustion with “politics as usual” – these are not glitches in democracy but raw materials for it. The challenge is to move from scrolling and shouting to organising and building. That begins with practices that convert intensity into structure: joining or forming local issue-based groups, setting small, time-bound goals (a public meeting, a neighbourhood survey, a petition with a clear demand), and linking online expression to offline action. In crisis times, it also means creating deliberate “cooling spaces” where disagreement is expected but de-escalated – reading groups, town halls, or cross-party forums that normalise listening as much as speaking. Political emotions become politically useful when they are shared,tested and refined in collective spaces rather than performed in algorithm-driven echo chambers.
Institutions, campaigns and everyday citizens can all design channels that turn volatility into civic energy. Some tactics are simple but powerful:
- Translate outrage into a specific ask: a policy amendment,a budget line,a divestment decision.
- Pair protest with proposals: every march ends with a clear, publicised roadmap of “next steps”.
- Rotate visible roles: speakers, facilitators and media voices change regularly to avoid emotional burnout and leader-cults.
- Measure emotional temperature: speedy check-ins at meetings (“angry”,”anxious”,”hopeful”) to adjust pace and tone.
| Emotion | Unfocused Reaction | Engaged Response |
|---|---|---|
| Anger | Online rants | Targeted campaigns |
| Fear | Withdrawal | Mutual-aid networks |
| Hope | Vague optimism | Long-term organising |
In populist, progressive and liberal projects alike, the task is not to suppress strong feelings but to scaffold them – with routines, forums and rules that protect individuals while sustaining collective momentum. When emotions are treated as data and not destiny, they can guide strategy rather than simply set the mood.
To Wrap It Up
As the dust of each new crisis settles, what remains are not only revised policies or reshuffled parties, but reconfigured ways of feeling together in public life. The debate at King’s College London makes clear that populism, progressivism and liberalism are not just rival programmes of government; they are competing emotional grammars for making sense of insecurity, loss and hope.
Understanding how these traditions mobilise fear, empathy, resentment or solidarity is no longer an academic luxury.It is indeed a prerequisite for grasping why some movements surge while others stall, why certain appeals cut through and others fall flat. At a time when anger can be monetised, compassion politicised and anxiety weaponised, the politics of feeling is itself a key battleground.
Whether liberal institutions can learn to speak more convincingly to wounded publics, whether progressive projects can translate moral urgency into durable alliances, and whether populist passions can be channelled without tipping into exclusion-these are not abstract questions. They will shape the next decade as profoundly as any economic forecast or security doctrine.
If there is one lesson from this conversation, it is that emotions are not what politics fails to control, but what politics is increasingly about. The task ahead is not to wish this away, but to ask: in crisis times, who gets to define what we feel-and to what end?
