Recent studies confirm what many clinicians, myself included, have quietly observed for years: Liberals \u2014 especially young liberals \u2014 are reporting worse mental health than their conservative peers. Statistician Nate Silver\u2019s Substack recently spotlighted this disparity, and while many factors are at play, one explanation remains oddly absent from the national conversation: the psychological cost of cutting people off over politics. <\/p>\n
In my work as a clinical psychologist, I\u2019ve watched this pattern unfold in real time. Some clients describe rising anxiety, loneliness and a growing sense of disconnection \u2014 but they don\u2019t initially trace it back to politics. Only after reflection do they realize: they\u2019ve quietly (or, in some cases quite loudly and proudly) distanced themselves from family, ended friendships, or withdrawn from romantic prospects \u2014 not because of mistreatment, but because of political disagreement. <\/p>\n
As I was researching for my upcoming book Can I Say That? Why Free Speech Matters and How to Use It Fearlessly, I noticed a striking pattern \u2014 what I now call ‘The Five Ds’: defriending, declining to date, disinviting, decreasing contact and outright dropping someone over political views. These behaviors are often framed as moral stands. But when practiced habitually, they can degrade the very relationships we rely on for emotional well-being. Research backs this up \u2014 liberals are statistically more likely than conservatives to engage in the Five Ds over political differences. <\/p>\n<\/p>\n
The cost is real. The U.S. surgeon general has declared loneliness a public health crisis, linking it to depression, anxiety and even physical health problems. Social support is a powerful protective factor \u2014 it helps regulate emotions, buffer stress and reinforce a person\u2019s sense of meaning and connection. <\/p>\n
As social creatures, humans rely on relationships to regulate stress. When those bonds are cut over politics \u2014 especially through the habitual use of the Five Ds \u2014 liberals may be isolating themselves in ways that make them more vulnerable to loneliness, anxiety and diminished emotional regulation. <\/p>\n
Some do this in the name of safety, seeing opposing views as threatening. But this is a dangerous shift. Conflating disagreement with danger undermines mental health and shrinks our capacity for dialogue. Even The New York Times recently published an essay titled ‘Is It Time to Stop Snubbing Your Right-Wing Family?’ in which former Obama speechwriter David Litt wrestles with whether to stay in contact with his conservative brother-in-law. To his credit, Litt expresses openness to reconnecting. But his tone is hesitant, not declarative. <\/p>\n<\/p>\n
The piece reads less like someone awakening to the dangers of ideological cutoffs and more like someone reluctantly conceding a grudge. That this question \u2014 whether to maintain ties with family \u2014 was posed at all in a national newspaper shows how far the goalposts have shifted. Ostracizing loved ones over votes once seemed extreme. Now it\u2019s mainstream content. <\/p>\n<\/p>\n
This mindset of seeing opposing views as intolerable, or even threatening, isn\u2019t just common \u2014 it\u2019s increasingly celebrated, even when it harms us. The phrase ‘words are violence’ may feel righteous, but taken literally, it breeds anxiety and isolation. When we view differing viewpoints as threats, we push people away \u2014 not because we must, but because we\u2019ve convinced ourselves we should. The result? We\u2019re lonelier and more brittle than ever. <\/p>\n