March 29, 2024

How to stop politics from controlling your emotions | Tim Snyder | Big Think



Published May 20, 2023, 4:20 a.m. by Arrik Motley


When it comes to politics, it's easy to get wrapped up in the emotions of the situation. But if you want to be successful in politics, it's important to be able to control your emotions and not let them control you.

Here are four tips to help you keep your emotions in check when it comes to politics:

1. Be aware of your triggers.

What are the things that tend to trigger your emotional reactions in politics? Once you know what these are, you can be more mindful of them and try to avoid them.

2. Don't take things personally.

It's easy to get caught up in the drama of politics and take things personally. But at the end of the day, politics is just a game. It's not worth getting worked up about.

3. Don't get too attached to outcomes.

In politics, things rarely go the way you want them to. If you get too attached to a particular outcome, you're setting yourself up for disappointment.

4. Practice mindfulness.

Mindfulness can help you stay present in the moment and not get caught up in your thoughts and emotions. This can be helpful in any area of life, but it's especially useful in politics.

If you can learn to control your emotions in politics, you'll be better equipped to handle the stress of the situation and make better decisions.

You may also like to read about:



History is actually the one thing I think which allows you to get out ahead.

It’s very ironic, because when people think about history they think, “Well, history

means that things are going on in the world and a historian is off reading dusty books,”

which, fair enough, I would love to be reading lots of dusty books right now.

I will concede the point.

But when you’ve read all those dusty books, what happens is that you have the ability

to see certain patterns, you have a sense of what fits together and what doesn’t fit

together.

Isaiah Berlin wrote an essay on the possibility of the scientific history, in which he said

that “history is not about knowing what happens, it’s about knowing what can’t

happen.”

That is extremely useful.

So a historian will never look at a problem and say, “This is entirely new,” a historian

will look at a problem and try to find the familiar aspects of it.

And that’s a very big advantage over other forms of analysis, because if you look at

something and say that it’s totally new, that disables the mind right away, it also

tends to disable, I think, political action.

Because if something is totally new it’s very easy to take the next step and say, “Well

if it’s totally new then what can I do about it?”

Or you can say, “Since it’s totally new all things are permitted,” which can also

lead you in some really unproductive direction.

So the first thing the historian will do is we’ll say, “Whatever this problem is,

it’s not entirely new.”

When a historian is confronted by something very surprising like the 2016 campaign in

the United States, the historian is likely to say, “Well, the things that this candidate

is saying aren’t true, but the possibility this kind of campaign could work is a real

possibility.”

So the historian is freed from, or should be freed from the conviction of the day, and

the historian automatically looks back to other moments where similar things like this

coalesced.

So for example, we’re in a second globalization.

There was a first globalization in the late 19th and early 20th century.

The second globalization began, our globalization began, with all kinds of promises that technology

and export-lead growth would lead to enlightenment and liberalism—the first globalization did

too.

The first globalization crashed.

It crashed into the first World War, the Great Depression, the second World War, Stalinism,

the Holocaust.

A historian looking at today won’t think “Well that whole pattern is going to repeat

itself,” but the historian looking at it today can say, “Yeah, a politician who says

that globalization is a problem not a solution, a politician who says that globalization is

a matter of particular people plotting against us as opposed to objective threats to the

country or objective problems, that kind of politician has a chance.

That can work.

Things like that have worked before.”

And once you see that it can come together that way, it’s not that you’re sure, it’s

not that you predict it (although I have made some predictions that were right), but it’s

more that you can see it coming together, and then that allows you to get out ahead,

and you can think, “Okay, well, if this is going to come together this way then I

can also steal from the past people’s correct reactions to it or people’s wise reactions

to it.

I can use those things from the failure of the first of globalization, I can just borrow

them, I can now extract them and put them in the 21st century,” which is what I did

in On Tyranny.

So rather than saying, “Okay I’m going to wait” – because by the time the pattern

actually coalesces it’s too late!

You have to see that the pattern might be coalescing and then start messing with the

pattern, that the way that you see in coalescing comes from history, and the tools that you

use to start messing with it also come from history.

So in that way, ironically, history can allow you to get out ahead of something, whereas

the journalists naturally have to describe that—that’s their job.

The social scientists they’re going to wait to categorize it, and they’re kind of trapped.

I mean another irony is that historians are comfortable with novelty, because we know

things change all the time.

When your perspective is a thousand years or even a hundred years, you know stuff changes.

You know there are turning points.

And you know that the stuff which people thought was unbelievable yesterday will not only be

believable but will even seem normal today.

Any historian can see that.

So that gives us a certain edge I think.

The second thing that a historian will do is that a historian will be skeptical about

sources.

So if you say “the problem is X”, a historian will instantly cock his or her head and think,

“Okay well, this person says the problem is X, but let’s cast our minds out immediately

to try to think of what the other 15 relevant perspectives on this problem are.

Is it actually a problem?

Maybe it’s something which is desirable from certain points of view.”

So that’s a methodological reflex that, whatever your first person perspective is,

that’s not the truth for me.

The truth automatically has to come from comparing your perspective to a whole bunch of other

perspectives.

And that’s useful also because it can preserve the dynamism and the urgency of something

while taking some of the subjective spin from it.

So ideally a historian or a historically-trained person is less likely to be played by the

presentation of a problem and more likely to skeptically figure out what its contours

are.

And the third advantage that historians have, and maybe this is the one which I find to

be most relevant in the present, is that historians see time as a flow or as something which is

continuous.

And this is incredibly important now, because the way that the news cycle works or the way

that what I call the “politics of eternity” works is that you get your brain bludgeoned

every day by the emotions of the moment as transmitted by very skilled political actors

through very efficient media, and the result is that it’s so easy to either be elated

or outraged every day and to experience the day as a kind of complete unit—where you

wake up, you’re shocked, you’re outraged, and then by the end of the day you’re dissipated,

you’re exhausted, and then you just begin this cycle again.

Historians don’t believe in cycles, or at least good historians don’t believe in cycles.

Historians think that there are long-term patterns; however exciting or however exhausting

or however terrifying the thing is today, it’s part of some longer sweep.

So to give an extreme example, even nuclear war—so in the last few months the subject

of nuclear war has come up from all kinds of directions.

Even nuclear war has a history.

There’s only been one, and that was in 1945, and there have been a lot of moments where

it was likely or less likely (like Cuba).

So even something which is dramatic and which is, as it were, designed to shock you out

of thinking in time, even that can be put in some kind of context.

In other words the weapons that are designed to get you to stop thinking, like “Let’s

be afraid of the foreigners” or “let’s be afraid of nuclear war,” if you think

about those threats over time as part as some kind of larger flow you’re less likely to

be disabled, and you’re more likely to distinguish the rhetoric from what might actually be the

risk.

Resources:

Similar videos

2CUTURL

Created in 2013, 2CUTURL has been on the forefront of entertainment and breaking news. Our editorial staff delivers high quality articles, video, documentary and live along with multi-platform content.

© 2CUTURL. All Rights Reserved.