This is Your Brain on Politics

In 1789, as the French Revolution was beginning, a body of députés was selected to debate the future direction of the country in the National Assembly. Those who supported the monarchy—as personified by Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette—sat to the right side of the presiding officer. Those who embraced the democratic notions of the revolution—liberté, égalité, et fraternité—sat to his left. Despite the stated goal of a peaceful solution, the heads of some of these députés soon rolled. But their seats stuck. Throughout the world, “the left” is typically inclined to advocate for welfare policies and land reforms, seeking a change in society as a whole to better address social inequalities. “The right” typically espouses tradition and law and order, seeking to sustain national and societal stability and often appealing to mechanisms exerted through the free marketplace rather than by the imposition of broad government initiatives.

Political neuroscience is an attempt to evaluate which aspects of the human brain are called into play when we take a political position, right or left. The discipline—actually a mix of many disciplines—is complex. But there is one thing we know for sure: Voting never changes your mind. It only works in the other direction: Your mind changes your voting. And that seems to have set us up for extremes.

What We Know So Far

Most of the latest research is based on neuroimaging studies that use functional MRI (fMRI) scans, where scientists can see and measure how active some regions of the brain become when hearing or expressing certain kinds of political positions. For example, it has been shown repeatedly that the amygdala, a small almond-shaped region of the temporal lobe that plays an important role in determining when we feel threatened, is more active in individuals who identify themselves as being strongly conservative. That makes sense. Our amygdalae (there’s one in each hemisphere of the brain, so plural amygdalae) make us alert to small but potentially threatening changes that may have entered our environment. In short, it’s the brain’s designated guardian of the status quo. It is also heavily involved in orchestrating our fight-or-flight response, so expressing feelings about issues of national defense or border security would be expected to induce increased responsiveness of the amygdalae.

By contrast, deep in the center of the brain lies a strip-like band of tissue called the anterior cingulate cortex (ACC), which is more active in individuals who identify themselves as liberals. The ACC is literally the region of choice. It becomes active, for example, when we must continue performing a duty that makes us feel frustrated, but we do it because it is our job. It also becomes active when we make decisions to assume more risk in our investment portfolio because we want a larger profit margin but realize we may be putting more of our nest egg in jeopardy.

The ACC is a critical structure in detecting errors, for example, when we suddenly discover we are driving the wrong way down a one-way street. It also helps to apportion distress. When we fall down, we may feel the physical pain from, say, an abrasion, but we also feel psychic pain from being clumsy or because we failed to pay adequate attention.

Finally, the ACC is heavily involved in helping us see the emotional component of our decision making. So, for example, I may not want to attend a dinner party, but it is also the third time I have rejected an invitation from a particular friend, and I am increasingly worried I may be hurting his feelings. If you popped me in a fMRI scanner—good luck with that—you’d see my ACC being genuinely sorry.

So which comes first—does a person’s biology naturally influence their political opinions or does their political bent influence their biology? Studies with fraternal versus identical twins done in the United States, Canada, and Europe have shown that between 40 to 75 percent of individuals’ attitudes toward political parties, candidates, and slogans appears to be genetic.

In another vein of inquiry, political neuroscientists studied patients who have brain lesions related to the surgical removal of tumors. The study revealed that the presence and size of lesions in the frontal lobe were associated with political conservatism. In other words, the study suggests that processes mediated specifically by the frontal lobes are important for sustaining liberal ideologies. When these areas were damaged by surgery, the individual’s political views became more conservative. Patients with lesions in the temporal lobe (where the amygdalae are located) appeared to be just as liberal as individuals in control groups without damage.

Liberal Vs. Conservative Brains

In a separate study, American subjects were pre-identified by questionnaire as to their liberal or conservative position on immigration issues. The subjects were then scanned as they watched news footage, campaign ads, and speeches related to immigration. The researchers found one area where “neural polarization” seemed to occur in the dorsomedial prefrontal cortex (DMPFC), a brain region that is active during the interpretation of narrative intake. News content that was relevant to matters of risk or that appealed to heightened moral-emotional decision-making were the most likely to drive liberal and conservative subjects apart—and lead them to divergent conclusions.

In addition, the more closely a subject’s DMPFC activity pattern resembled the average pattern seen among reference groups of conservative or liberal subjects who had undergone fMRI scanning, the more likely the individual was to shift their own political position to one that was either a more conservative or more liberal perspective. In other words, the more your brain activity resembles that of a liberal or a conservative, the more likely you are to join that group.

In a parallel fashion, liberals and conservatives use different cognitive processes to arrive at decisions. For example, when considering a candidate or a political position around immigration, the conservative may frame their decision in terms of national security and protection of boundaries. In the liberal individual, the same political question might engender increased activity in those areas of the brain that govern our notions of inclusivity, diversity, and equal opportunity. So, while the conservative might frame the debate in the context of national sovereignty and job security, the liberal may see the same issue in the light of offering asylum and opportunity to immigrants who suffer under regimes that offer inadequate protection.

Psychologists also look at how our emotional state can profoundly influence how we use our cognitive processes to shape our political positions. For example, there is a fundamental bond between the importance we lend new information and the preexisting opinions we already hold. Similarly, our emotions can induce what’s called “motivated reasoning,” meaning we feel a greater drive to accept evidence that supports our desired outcome and to resist or over-scrutinize opposing evidence. One could say that “alternate facts” arise when our emotions don’t allow us to even consider the possibility that our position is wrong.

Increasingly, American Republicans and Democrats are finding themselves to be living in parallel universes, watching totally different worlds unfold with absolutely divergent storylines. Research has also shown the more we confer with individuals who have similar political orientations as we do, the more likely we are to become more hardened and extreme in our political positions. One of the most frightening insights to emerge from evaluating the differences between the two political parties is the finding that there was no overlap at all between the top 20 TV programs viewed by Democratic voters versus the top 20 programs viewed by Republicans. And there’s virtually no overlap in the news sources or information services that Democrats and Republicans tap into with social media.

Tribalism will not diminish in the face of aggression, intolerance, or increased defensiveness. Instead, we must open our minds and hearts to perspectives unlike our own.

A Path Forward?

This tragic reality makes it excruciatingly difficult to have rational discourse because it means we’re listening to two completely different sets of “truths” that actively strive to undermine the trustworthiness of the other. As political parties increasingly see themselves as hostile tribes engaged in outright aggression, listening to each other’s position becomes almost impossible. And even if listening occurs, changing or altering one’s entrenched stance is extremely unlikely. The fundamental problem is that a liberal and a conservative can listen to precisely the same information yet come to diametrically opposed conclusions. Therefore, it’s not merely a matter of what facts we put in front of each other. Instead, we desperately need to shift to a radically different perspective: How much opportunity have I genuinely given for someone with a differing political view to express it? How hard have I listened to that position with an open mind and heart? And finally, am I willing to embrace ambivalence and complexity?

We can reach true wisdom and true insight when we realize it’s possible to embrace both a conservative and a liberal idea at the same time and work purposefully to do so. It takes work to overcome the natural editorial function of the brain, but it’s an ideal we can aim for. After all, quantum physics has taught us that two seemingly contradictory states can indeed coexist in the same space. By proxy, we can therefore argue that two diametrically opposed sets of political opinions can potentially exist within the same overarching “truth.”

That may be the fundamental paradigm shift that has to take place in our thinking. Tribalism will not diminish in the face of aggression, intolerance, or increased defensiveness. If anything, these most recent series of neurological and psychological experiments show us that the notions of liberalism and conservatism are deeply embedded in some of our most fundamental bio-evolutionary processes.

To the extent that political opinions remain merely issues of reactivity and knee-jerk responses rather than cognition and compromise, they seem unlikely to change or find common ground. The path forward lies in opening our minds and hearts to perspectives unlike our own.

This article appeared in Spirituality & Health®: A Unity Publication and is a 2025 Folio: Eddie Award winner.