Professional Psychology Vs Politics in the 2024 Presidential Election

Dr. Jerry Don Smith Jr.

8 min read

Why a Fundamental Principal of Psychology Lost the American People and Won the Election for Donald J. Trump

Over the past few years, I have watched with mixed feelings as the field of psychology — praised for its progressive insights and dedication to inclusive values — has increasingly attempted to apply its therapeutic principles to the broader realm of governance. As a professional and an engaged citizen, I respect the profound impact that psychology has had in helping individuals heal and grow. However, I have come to believe that the unwavering application of “unconditional acceptance” in our political sphere has, in part, alienated the American populace. This, I argue, played a significant role in the seismic backlash witnessed at the 2024 presidential election.

The American Psychological Association (APA) recently reaffirmed its commitment to justice, human rights, fairness, and dignity for all in its policy statement approved by the APA Council of Representatives in February 2025. The document emphasizes that the values underpinning modern psychology are meant to foster environments in which every individual is seen and supported. In the controlled, one-on-one setting of therapy, unconditional acceptance is a cornerstone that allows clients to explore their identities — such as a transgender person seeking a compassionate space unburdened by judgment. Yet, when those very principles are transposed onto the sprawling, complex arena of national politics, the outcome is not as harmonious as one might hope.

The Luxury of the Therapist’s Office Versus the Realities of Governing

In my years of practice and observation, I have witnessed firsthand how unconditional acceptance creates a safe haven for individuals in therapy. When a client walks into my office, they are met with a non-judgmental space that allows for vulnerability, healing, and genuine self-reflection. Consider a transgender client who, amid societal stigmas, comes seeking affirmation and understanding; in such a circumstance, unconditional acceptance is not only therapeutic — it is transformative.

However, my experiences have also shown me that the dynamic shifts dramatically once we step outside the therapy room. Politics, by its very nature, is a field of robust debate, conflicting perspectives, and, yes, even disagreement. The expectation that the entire American populace should embrace an unqualified stance of acceptance on all issues — from social concerns to religion, economic policies, and national security — is an unrealistic prescription. American citizens, facing real-life challenges every day, do not always have the time, energy, or even the desire to adopt an attitude of unconditional acceptance towards conflicting or harmful viewpoints.

The therapeutic model, with its singular focus on individual growth, operates in a controlled environment where the stakes are personal and deeply intimate. In contrast, political governance affects millions; it requires bold decision-making, accountability, and, sometimes, a necessary rejection of policies or ideas that do not serve the public good. I’ve observed that when political leaders lean too heavily on the doctrine of unconditional acceptance — extrapolating psychological theories into policy — they risk overlooking the critical need for evaluative judgment and accountability.

The Perils of Transplanting Therapeutic Ideals into Politics

In my own reflection on the 2024 presidential election, I began to question whether the mere borrowing of therapeutic ideals had inadvertently contributed to the polarization we witnessed at the ballot boxes. On one hand, the APA’s insistence on justice, fairness, and dignity resonates deeply with the spirit of American democracy. Yet, the expectation that these values, particularly unconditional acceptance, can be uniformly applied to every aspect of public life ignores an essential truth: what works in a counseling session does not automatically scale up to effective national governance.

Take, for instance, the approach to controversial topics. Within the safe space of therapy, a client’s expressed perspective — no matter how unconventional or emotionally charged — deserves to be met with empathy. There is no immediate requirement to challenge every subjective belief; the focus is instead on healing. However, imagine if our political leaders were to insist on an identical approach with regard to public policy: every political or social opinion, however extreme or ill-informed, is met with the same warmth and acceptance. Such a policy risks failing to distinguish between ideas that facilitate dialogue and those that, when left unchecked, can contribute to societal division.

I recall discussions where proponents of unconditional acceptance in politics argued that all voices, including extremist ones, should be heard and given credence. This idea, while noble on the surface, left many voters feeling uneasy. There was a pervasive sense that by refusing to hold any opinion accountable — even those that could endanger social cohesion — political leaders were sending a message far removed from the gritty realities of daily life. For many, unconditional acceptance seemed to translate into a lack of discernment, a failure to challenge harmful ideologies when it was most needed.

The Backlash: A Response to a One-Size-Fits-All Approach

During the 2024 election cycle, I witnessed an increasing stream of frustration among American voters. Many were tired of what they perceived as a blanket acceptance of ideas, no matter how extreme, without the necessary checks and balances of rigorous debate. They felt that the comforting zone of unconditional acceptance in politics led to policies that were not only impractical but sometimes even dangerous.

I personally encountered friends and colleagues who expressed their discontent, articulating a longing for a political culture that embraced diversity of thought, yet was rigorously discerning when it came to accountability. In a country as varied as ours, it became clear to me that expecting every citizen to approach contentious issues with the same stance of acceptance as one might in a therapy session was not realistic. The electorate craved a form of political engagement that recognized the value of dissent and the necessity for sometimes uncomfortable, yet ultimately constructive, confrontation.

For instance, in debates about free speech and political correctness, the insistence on unconditional acceptance — on hearing every opinion without critique — seemed to encourage the proliferation of extremist ideologies. While it is crucial that marginalized voices are heard and that every individual is treated with dignity, when this principle is applied without nuance, it can lead to the unintended consequence of legitimizing harmful rhetoric. Voters, feeling that their own perspectives and the practical implications of policies were being sidelined in favor of an overly idealistic framework, began to seek alternatives at the polls.

A Personal Journey from Acceptance to Accountability

My own ideological journey has been marked by a deep respect for psychological principles, tempered by the realities of public life. As a psychologist, I have long championed the power of unconditional acceptance in individual therapy. I have seen it empower vulnerable individuals and create breakthroughs where judgment might otherwise have closed the door to healing. However, as someone who also engages in the political discourse as a citizen, I have come to appreciate the need for a more balanced approach in our national governance.

I’ve learned — often painfully — that the very same approach that nurtures self-acceptance in therapy can sometimes be misapplied when constructing the policies that affect us all. It became increasingly clear to me that while unconditional acceptance is a laudable goal in one-on-one interpersonal settings, it is insufficient as a standalone principle for managing the diverse and often conflicting interests of a nation. The American people, with their wide-ranging experiences and opinions, require a framework that not only listens but also assesses, challenges, and, when necessary, rejects policies that do not serve the common good.

I witnessed this tension firsthand during political debates and community discussions. Many expressed concern over what they perceived as an overreach — a situation where psychological theories were overly influencing political platforms, leading to policies that seemed disconnected from the societal challenges most Americans face. There was a growing sentiment that our political leaders were enacting a form of “political therapy” that prioritized emotional safety/deference to the individual over pragmatic solutions and accountability.

Embracing a Philosophy of Conditional Acceptance

After much reflection on these events, I have become a strong proponent of what I call “conditional acceptance” in politics. This does not mean abandoning the values of justice, human rights, fairness, and dignity that the APA so passionately upholds. Rather, it means recognizing that political governance operates under a different set of imperatives than therapeutic practice. In the political arena, acceptance should be coupled with a healthy dose of skepticism and a commitment to accountability.

For example, in my interactions with politically engaged communities, I have advocated for policies that, while embracing diversity and protecting minority rights, also establish clear standards for accountability. This approach acknowledges that while every individual deserves respect, not every opinion or policy should be shielded from critical scrutiny. Voters, including myself, are more inclined to support leaders who seem willing to challenge harmful ideas and engage in robust debate, rather than those who promote an indiscriminate acceptance of all viewpoints.

I have seen this balanced approach yield tangible benefits. Communities that foster open, yet discerning dialogue tend to be more resilient — they are better able to integrate a variety of perspectives while still maintaining a shared commitment to the common good. In contrast, when unconditional acceptance is taken to its extreme in the public policy domain, it can inadvertently pave the way for extremism and undermine the very idea of democratic accountability.

Rethinking the Role of Psychology in Public Policy

I must stress that my critique is not an indictment of the APA or the valuable work done by countless psychologists across the country. The APA’s policy statement on reaffirming its commitment to justice, human rights, fairness, and dignity is a testament to the progress we have made in understanding and supporting mental well-being. I remain deeply respectful of the field of psychology and the noble mission that guides it. However, I believe that the framework of unconditional acceptance — so successful in the therapist’s office — must be adapted when applied to a system as complex as national governance.

Our current political climate demands leaders and policies that are agile, adaptable, and, importantly, accountable. They must be willing to engage in difficult conversations, to challenge societal norms, and to make tough decisions that do not always align with an ideal of unconditional acceptance. As I reflect on the events of the 2024 election, it is clear that many Americans were ready to reject a political approach that seemed to eschew necessary critical debate in favor of a purely empathetic stance.

The backlash experienced in the 2024 presidential election serves as a stark reminder that a one-size-fits-all application of therapeutic principles — namely, unconditional acceptance — does not align with the multifaceted needs of a democratic society. I firmly believe that the future of American governance lies in embracing a philosophy of conditional acceptance — one where compassion is interwoven with critical scrutiny, and where embracing diversity does not come at the expense of rigorous debate and accountability.