Is liberalism recognized as a mental illness? What Mental illnesses do trump supporters come to have
Executive summary
The claim that “liberalism is a mental illness” is a rhetorical position popularized in partisan polemics, notably Michael Savage’s 2005 book which explicitly frames liberalism as a psychological condition [1] [2]; mainstream social-science research does, however, document correlations between self‑reported mental-health problems and left‑of‑center political identification without treating liberalism itself as a psychiatric diagnosis [3] [4] [5]. Research on Trump supporters likewise finds associations with certain personality traits (e.g., higher measures on scales linked to callousness, narcissism, authoritarianism) and with worse self‑reported mental-health trajectories in some studies, but causation is unresolved and scholars warn against pathologizing whole political groups [6] [7] [8] [9].
1. How the “liberalism = mental illness” claim is presented in popular sources
The assertion that liberalism is a mental disorder appears in partisan media and bestselling books that treat political disagreement as psychopathology—Michael Savage’s Liberalism Is a Mental Disorder is the most cited example and explicitly argues that liberal ideas reflect a psychological distortion [1] [2]; summaries and commercial repackagings repeat that thesis as political invective rather than clinical argumentation [1].
2. What the social‑science literature actually shows about liberals and mental‑health reports
Multiple empirical studies and reviews find that people who identify as politically liberal report higher rates of depressive symptoms, internalizing problems, or mental‑illness diagnoses in survey data, and that “extreme” liberal self‑identification is often associated with larger differences [3] [4] [10] [11]; Columbia Magazine and university reporting summarize work showing liberals report lower psychological well‑being and higher depression rates, with researchers pointing to worry about social problems and demographic differences as partial explanations [5] [12].
3. Measurement, stigma and alternative explanations that complicate interpretation
Scholars caution that self‑report bias, stigma differences, demographic confounds, and political culture shape these findings: conservatives may underreport psychological distress due to stigma while liberals may be more willing to acknowledge problems or seek diagnoses, and factors like age, gender, socioeconomic status, and exposure to stressors (e.g., concern about climate or injustice) can drive apparent gaps [13] [14] [12]. Some researchers also note the possibility of underlying personality links—neuroticism correlates with both liberal views and poorer mental‑health scores—so the relationship may reflect shared traits rather than ideology “causing” illness [3] [12].
4. What studies say about Trump supporters and mental‑health or personality profiles
A cluster of studies finds that favorable views of Donald Trump are associated with elevated scores on measures tied to aggression, social dominance, authoritarianism, narcissism, and lower empathy in some samples, and that Trump voters reported worse mental‑health outcomes after the 2020 election compared with Biden voters in certain surveys [6] [7] [15] [8]. Large‑scale analyses also identify mixes of psychological traits (e.g., higher neuroticism in economically deprived areas) that helped explain Trump’s unique appeal in specific regions and demographic groups [16].
5. Limits, cautions, and the ethics of labeling political beliefs as pathology
Researchers repeatedly warn against treating political ideology as a psychiatric disorder: the evidence is almost entirely correlational and influenced by reporting biases, and some commentators and scholars emphasize that labeling opponents as “mentally ill” is both analytically weak and ethically fraught [13] [12] [9]. While certain personality traits and poorer self‑reported mental‑health outcomes appear more common in some partisan subgroups, the literature does not support diagnosing an entire political philosophy as a clinical mental‑illness category within established psychiatric systems—there is no sourced psychiatric consensus in the provided material that formalizes such a diagnosis [1] [3] [4].