This article is part of Upstream, The Daily Wire’s new home for culture and lifestyle. Real human insight and human stories — from our featured writers to you.
***
If Graham Platner were your daughter’s boyfriend instead of a Democratic Senate candidate, would the red flags suddenly seem easier to recognize?
That question may explain more about modern politics than most political analysis does.
For years, Democrats and much of the media warned Americans that Donald Trump represented authoritarianism, extremism, and even fascist sympathies. “Believe women” became a moral litmus test. “Red flags,” “patterns of behavior” and psychological “warning signs” were treated as urgent indicators of character. Political commentary increasingly adopted the language of therapy. Public figures were no longer simply dishonest or unethical. They were narcissists, gaslighters, abusers, and toxic personalities.
Therapy language gave political tribalism the appearance of psychological objectivity.
Americans were told that certain behaviors and symbols were disqualifying. Voters were urged to view red flags not as isolated incidents but as windows into deeper character and moral fitness. That framework was applied with enormous confidence when discussing Trump and his supporters.
Then came Graham Platner.
The Democratic Senate candidate has faced scrutiny over racist and misogynistic Reddit posts, a tattoo linked to Nazi symbolism, and reports of extramarital sexting while married. Yet many of the same people who spent years warning Americans about dangerous rhetoric, fascist symbolism, and the importance of believing women now seem remarkably comfortable minimizing, contextualizing, or ignoring behavior they would almost certainly describe as disqualifying in a Republican candidate.
The issue is not whether Platner deserves redemption. Nor is it whether every allegation should automatically end a political career. The issue is how quickly supposedly nonnegotiable principles become negotiable once loyalty enters the picture.
The Platner controversy is not really about Platner. It is about whether our standards change when our tribe changes.
As a therapist, I see versions of this constantly. Patients are often highly perceptive when evaluating people they already distrust. They can identify manipulation, dishonesty, narcissism, and controlling behavior with striking clarity. But apply those same standards to someone they love, admire, or desperately want approval from, and the certainty suddenly softens. Now there are explanations and exceptions; there is nuance and context.
The standards themselves didn’t change. Attachment did.
This is called “motivated reasoning,” our tendency to use reasoning less to discover truth than to defend conclusions we already want to believe. Most people assume bias feels dishonest or intentional. Usually, it doesn’t. It feels fair, rational, and principled.
The mind becomes remarkably creative when protecting an emotional investment.
Politics is not exempt from these dynamics. If anything, modern political identity intensifies them. For many Americans, politics no longer feels like a disagreement over policy. Political allegiance has become intertwined with identity, belonging, and moral self-worth. Once that happens, criticism feels less like disagreement and more like betrayal.
That‘s why scandals rarely change minds the way outsiders expect them to. Most people assume persuasion is mainly about evidence. But once loyalty enters the picture, evidence gets filtered through attachment first.
What looks like objectivity is often allegiance in disguise.
Modern political culture adds another complication. Many Americans now experience their political judgments as clinical rather than emotional. Terms such as “toxic,” “dangerous,” “narcissistic,” and “red flag” sound objective and psychologically informed. But people notice when those standards are applied selectively, when patterns of behavior matter intensely in one case but suddenly become open to interpretation in another.
Over time, that selectivity erodes trust not only in politics but in the language itself. Words such as “gaslighting,” “toxic,” and “narcissist” strike many Americans less as meaningful psychological concepts than as partisan weapons deployed selectively against opponents. That is unfortunate because some warning signs are real.
The Platner controversy is not exposing Democratic hypocrisy so much as a broader human tendency that Democrats happen to be illustrating at the moment. We are remarkably skilled at recognizing red flags in people we oppose while explaining them away in people we feel compelled to defend.
The real question is not whether we can identify red flags. It is whether we apply the same standards to our own side that we demand from everyone else. If we cannot, the problem is not politics. It’s us.
***
Jonathan Alpert is a psychotherapist in New York City and Washington, D.C., and author of the book “Therapy Nation.” Find him on X @JonathanAlpert.
.png)
.png)
