The Mirror
This series covers mental health, political polarization, and other sensitive issues. If you or someone you know needs mental health support, please reach out to a healthcare professional. For immediate assistance, contact the 988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline.
* * *
[music plays]
Even in a fractured nation, there's still hope for understanding.
This is "divided.," a podcast exploring what divides us—and how we find common ground. I’m your host, Armon Owlia.
[music fades]
MARQUEECE HARRIS-DAWSON: “One of the hallmarks of bad leadership is bad or negative communication. And so if you preach gloom and doom, and, you know, we've certainly had people's surface in our body politic, oh, that LA is the most unsafe place in the world, we're in the middle of a crime epidemic, you can't walk down the street. You know, that kind of, you know, rhetoric is certainly out there.”
MARYAM KIA-KEATING: “There's a real sense of doom and gloom, and a sense that you really can't escape a lot of this.”
[music plays]
As we near a critical election, it’s essential to scrutinize candidate rhetoric and its influence on both parties—and the nation. Accountability is more crucial than ever, but misinformation and overall biases make it harder. A recent Pew Research Center study found that more than half of U.S. journalists believe not all sides deserve equal coverage.
But that’s exactly why this work is necessary.
* * *
Imagine American politics as a fogged-up mirror. We move, but the reflection stays blurry. Rhetoric and bias cloud the full picture, obscuring what’s really happening. With this election viewed as one of the most consequential, the fog feels thicker than ever—just when we need clarity most. We’re only seeing part of the picture, missing what’s hidden on the other side.
At both major parties' rallies, there’s a pattern: the candidate greets the crowd, makes slogan-filled promises, riles them up, and exits to thunderous applause. The details vary depending on the party.
At a Democratic rally, you might hear phrases like this:
[music fades]
BERNIE SANDERS: “Brothers and sisters, bottom line, we need an economy that works for all of us, not just the billionaire class. My fellow Americans, when 60% of our people live paycheck to paycheck, the top 1% have never ever had it so good.”
ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-CORTEZ: “This is not an elitist issue; this is a quality of life issue. You want to tell people that their concern and their desire for clean air and clean water is elitist? Tell that to the kids in the South Bronx, which are suffering from the highest rates of childhood asthma in the country.”
At rallies like these, Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez don't just speak to the crowd, they engage with them. Their speeches are designed to stir emotions, energize the base, and offer a collective vision. It's a style of politics that feeds off enthusiasm—turning policy into passion. This isn’t just about delivering a message for them, it’s about creating a movement.
BERNIE SANDERS: "Too many billionaires are controlling the political process. We’ve got to end that. We’ve got to overturn Citizens United and move to public funding of elections, in my view."
ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-CORTEZ: “I think one of the things that's most important is that the Democratic Party is and must return to our roots as a working-class party that centers everyday people and our most basic material needs, and also one that champions our economic rights while also being a multiracial democracy where people of all creeds, faiths, genders, identities can thrive.”
At Republican rallies, you might hear…
DONALD TRUMP: "They’re coming in, and they’re coming in, they’re invading. It’s an invasion of millions of people, probably 15, 16, 17 million people. I have a feeling it’s much more than that. And everybody has been seeing what’s happened."
MARJORIE TAYLOR GREENE: "They promised unity and delivered division. They promised peace and brought war. They promised normalcy and gave us Transgender Visibility Day on Easter Sunday. And let me state this clearly. There are only two genders, and we are made in God’s image."
At rallies, Donald Trump and Marjorie Taylor Greene command the stage with a style that thrives on outrage and urgency. Their speeches don’t just inform—they provoke. The language is sharp, repetitive, and filled with vivid imagery designed to fuel a sense of crisis. It’s not just about policy here; it’s about stoking the belief that something fundamental is at stake, something that only they can defend.
DONALD TRUMP: "We were right there in the first term. We got hit with COVID. We did a great job. Nobody knew what it was. But nobody’s ever seen an economy pre-COVID, and then we handed over a stock market that was substantially higher than just prior to COVID.”
MARJORIE TAYLOR GREENE: "When I ran for Congress, I said, ‘Save America, Stop Socialism,’ but when I came back to ask you to reelect me and send me back in 2022, I changed my campaign sign and I've got them sitting back there, and my campaign signs starting in 2022, said ‘Save America, Stop Communism.’"
Both sides use emotionally charged language to stoke fear, frustration, or outrage. Speeches, campaigns, and social media posts trigger emotional reactions, creating villains and heroes and portraying the other side as an existential threat.
[music plays]
Whether it's phrases like “billionaire class” or “China Virus,” the result is the same: polarization deepens, and trust erodes. These statements are meticulously crafted to tap into our fears and insecurities, driving us further apart.
These aren’t just isolated statements—they’re part of a broader political strategy. Much of what we hear isn’t about policy; it’s psychological, tapping into primal emotions like fear, survival, and loyalty.
[music fades]
These are extreme examples to show the depths of polarization. Just to be clear: This isn’t every rally or every candidate.
Newly-elected Los Angeles City Council president Marqueece Harris-Dawson, who represents District 8, which includes parts of South Los Angeles, spanning from Baldwin Hills to Watts and encompassing historic areas like Crenshaw and Leimert Park.
MARQUEECE HARRIS-DAWSON: “One of the hallmarks of bad leadership is bad or negative communication. And so if you preach gloom and doom, and, you know, we've certainly had people's surface in our body politic, oh, that LA is the most unsafe place in the world, we're in the middle of a crime epidemic, you can't walk down the street. You know, that kind of, you know, rhetoric is certainly out there.”
But, as polarization intensifies, the harmful polarized rhetoric reflected is becoming the norm. I started to notice something changing—not just in the rhetoric, but in myself and in the American public. I found myself reacting more strongly, getting pulled into the emotional extremes, and I realized many others were likely feeling the same way.
I'm not a psychologist, but as I listened to this polarized rhetoric from both sides and considered its impact, I noticed patterns. Our collective behavior—the way we as Americans were responding—seemed increasingly irrational. Something felt off, and it made me pause.
I saw a clinical connection that led me to the DSM-5, used by physicians to diagnose illness and mental health conditions. There it was: post-traumatic stress disorder, PTSD.
This isn’t just individual trauma—it’s collective. Polarized rhetoric has seeped into the national psyche, shaping our behavior, discourse, and politics. Like PTSD distorts an individual’s perception, our shared experience warps how we see the world, fueling a cycle of fear, distrust, and division.
* * *
Do these symptoms sound familiar?
[music plays]
Recurrent, involuntary, intrusive memories of traumatic events—memories that keep returning, even when we try to push them away. In today’s polarized world, rhetoric triggers these feelings daily.
ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-CORTEZ: "Overturning Roe puts every single one of us in danger."
DONALD TRUMP: "And then COVID started coming in from China. We call it the China Virus. Some people call it other things. But it was devastating and we built it back and did an incredible job."
These statements focus on different issues, but both tap into a deep-seated fear—whether it's fear of losing rights or facing an external threat. They don’t just stir emotions in the moment; they trigger lasting feelings of uncertainty and vulnerability, which linger long after they’re spoken.
Our nation has been shaped by repeated traumas—from the racial terror of Jim Crow and violent clashes of the Civil Rights movement to 9/11 to January 6th, the pandemic, and ongoing wars. It's emotionally draining, regardless of politics.
Forty-one percent of U.S. adults reported high psychological distress at the height of the pandemic, according to Pew Research. CDC data reports 33% of American adults feel lonelier than ever, and 25% lack social or emotional support, despite a hyper-connected world.
Next: persistent, exaggerated belief that the worst is inevitable—whether about others or society. This makes us believe everything is going downhill.
BERNIE SANDERS: "And unlike Donald Trump, we know that climate change is real and that it is an existential threat to our country and the entire planet and that is why, through a Green New Deal, we are going to take on the fossil fuel industry, and we are going to transform our energy system away from fossil fuel to energy efficiency and sustainable energy."
MARJORIE TAYLOR GREENE: “They claim that our economy is thriving, yet hundreds of thousands of American-born workers lost their jobs these past few years. The Democrats’ economy is of, by, and for illegal aliens.”
Everything starts to feel bleak, untrustworthy, and dangerous. This feeling grows with every speech, news story, and social media post. Rhetoric targeting quote-unquote elites, outrage over cancel culture, and perceived injustices amplify the fear that institutions—and even our neighbors—are working against us as everyday people.
This isn’t abstract—it’s measurable. A 2023 American Psychological Association report said 68% of Americans see the nation’s future as a major source of stress, driven by political discourse, economic instability, and divisive cultural debates.
The DSM-5 also notes persistent, distorted beliefs about trauma’s causes or consequences. Basically, people twist facts and think they know exactly who’s to blame and the extent of the harm.
ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-CORTEZ: "We have to help her win because we know that Donald Trump would sell this country for a dollar if it meant lining his own pockets and greasing the palms of his Wall Street friends."
MARJORIE TAYLOR GREENE: “You know, November 4th, 2020 is when the real Civil War in this country started. They stole the election. They stole it."
Then, a persistent negative emotional state—fear, anger, guilt, or shame—linger, shaping how we see the world, leading to ongoing resentment and anxiety.
BERNIE SANDERS: “Thousands of people a year will die if that legislation becomes law. And I have a hard time understanding how any member of the Senate could vote for legislation which takes insurance and support away from disabled children who are now on the Medicaid program.”
MARJORIE TAYLOR GREENE: "We live in the greatest country in the world, the United States of America. We’re a nation of people that aren’t going to lay down to socialism, are we? No! That’s right. Screw socialism. That’s how I feel about it."
We’re all the heroes of our own story, but we’re unreliable narrators—shaped by fear, anger, guilt, and shame, which distort our reality.
* * *
Ninety percent of Americans agree we’re in a mental health crisis, and stress about the nation’s future makes it worse. Daily rhetoric amplifies these feelings, trapping us in narratives that fuel division and distrust.
Next, reckless and self-destructive behavior—actions taken without considering the consequences. Whether it’s violence, verbal attacks, or harmful decisions toward ourselves or others.
ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-CORTEZ: “I just want to speak to how courageously Representatives Bowman and Bush have served in Congress and they spoke courageously on issues that are often very difficult to talk about in mainstream politics. And I think that is one of the reasons why they earned so much support, because they’re willing to put their careers on the line to advocate for the issues that they think and the viewpoints that they think are right.”
DONALD TRUMP: "Millions and millions of people are pouring in from prisons and from mental institutions. We're going to stop it. We're going to get it stopped. We're going to bring them back, as you said. We're going to bring them back."
Whether online through cancel culture or in person—like Jan. 6—these behaviors are becoming alarmingly frequent. A 2023 Pew Research Center study found that 79% of U.S. adults see political discourse as more negative and disrespectful than before.
Finally, hypervigilance—constantly on edge, expecting danger or harm.
ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-CORTEZ: "We are in a very dangerous moment, not just for women, not just for LGBT communities, not just for all of us, but we are in a dangerous moment in the world. Because this is not just about the right to choice, this is about rule of law and democracy, and who is a full person in the eyes of the law."
MARJORIE TAYLOR GREENE: "Do you think that we are free in America? Are we free? No, this certainly does not feel like it. And at the same time they have done this, they have ripped our border wide open for millions and millions of people from over 160 countries all around the world have invaded our country, and at the same time, they wanna tell you on television why you should care about some country called Ukraine that we can’t even find on a map and why hundreds of billions of dollars of your money should go and pay for a war in a country that is not affecting our country."
[music fades]
By now, these symptoms should sound familiar. Earlier, I mentioned that the behaviors we’re seeing today—the heightened fear, distrust, and constant tension—felt like more than political disagreement. After digging deeper, I realized why: these aren’t just traits of a divided society. They mirror the clinical symptoms of PTSD.
This issue runs deeper than it seems. For a long time, we’ve been searching for explanations to understand our behavior and why solutions aren’t sticking. Nothing felt like it addressed the problem at its core—until now. If we want to heal as a nation, we can’t just shrug it off as the new normal. A problem this deep needs a deeper understanding. Only by looking beyond surface politics can we find real solutions. This is more than polarization—it’s a psychological crisis, and to heal, we need to understand it for what it truly is.
“But wait, how can a whole country have PTSD?” I had the same question.
There’s no clinical research on PTSD at the societal level, or at least none I could find in thorough research. I did notice two things, though. Our understanding of PTSD is still limited—scientific psychology is relatively new—and the pieces fit too well to be a coincidence.
So, I sought out a PTSD expert to see if I was onto something.
OWLIA (in interview): “You and I discussed that political polarization could possibly be explained by what I referred to as societal PTSD. Now, the DSM-5, which put PTSD in there in 1980, I mean, there is no clinical evidence at this point that such a thing would even exist. But, in your expertise, in your knowledge, is such a theory plausible?”
MARYAM KIA-KEATING: “So, absolutely. I mean, I think that we really need to evolve our understandings of what might contribute to, especially to collective trauma.”
[music plays]
Meet Maryam Kia-Keating, a professor of counseling, clinical, and school psychology at UC Santa Barbara and an expert on trauma and resilience. She oversees the Trauma and Adversity, Resilience & Prevention program and has worked with top trauma experts at Yale and Harvard.
MARYAM KIA-KEATING: "As soon as we have that inkling of a reaction to some threats that we have received and experienced, whether it's on an individual basis or on a national basis, and then you look to your leaders and those who have powerful voices who are saying, ‘Yes, there are these threats,’ and they work with that fear, they can really kindle that fire and get the reaction that they're looking for. Because ultimately, unfortunately, they're perhaps doing it for some of the wrong reasons, which is to get voters and to continue in their aspirations and careers, rather than thinking about what the profound effect they might be having on society."
My generation, like others, has endured national traumas that shape our lives. In just the last 25 years—Columbine, 9/11, the Great Recession, Sandy Hook, COVID-19, January 6, and the wars in Afghanistan and now Gaza and Ukraine—are only part of the list. These crises help explain why we’re so fragile.
MARYAM KIA-KEATING: “In the aftermath of a trauma, it makes complete sense if you think about it. If you're living an innocent life and you have everything you need, and nothing bad seems to be going on, you're going to be very warm and receptive to things that happen around you.”
In times of trauma and fear, people instinctively seek strong leadership, hoping for stability. But history reminds us that not every leader acts with the best intentions.
MARYAM KIA-KEATING: “What I could say is that this is an easy strategy for somebody to go to, thinking, ‘Hey, I'm going to get interest, attention. I'm going to get people's attention and people’s votes.’”
No two groups are the same. Depending on your background and beliefs, different issues become priorities. As fringe Democratic and Republican candidates enter the mainstream, they use fear and anxiety to hold power, further polarizing the political landscape.
Both Republicans and Democrats stoke fear, portraying the other side as an existential threat. Republicans like Donald Trump, Marjorie Taylor Greene, and Ted Cruz focus on nationalism, personal freedoms, and traditional values under attack, fueling fears of immigration or cultural change and making compromise appear weak.
Democrats like Bernie Sanders, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, and Elizabeth Warren advocate for systemic reform on wealth inequality and climate justice, pushing for immediate, large-scale change to tackle deep-rooted injustices. This approach can alienate moderates, who prefer gradual progress and see radical change as too risky.
Moderates, caught between extremes, are pressured to choose a side or risk being marginalized. Polarization leaves little room for middle-ground solutions, and even moderate politicians adopt more aggressive stances to stay relevant.
MARYAM KIA-KEATING: “It's not that hard to imagine two people coming together and realizing they actually both want the same thing, even if they're from different sides. Like, they just want safety, and they want a chance for their families, right? And so, then it's like, 'Wait, okay, there is this sense of shared humanity that we can almost get to, or maybe we really can get there.' But unfortunately, most of the time, those conversations aren't happening.”
[music fades]
Imagine the political spectrum as a rubber band. In the middle are those—moderates, liberals, and conservatives—who don’t fully align with their party’s extremes. They’re pulled in both directions by the far-left and far-right. With each election, the band stretches further, leaving less space for those in between. Eventually, the tension snaps, forcing people into polarized camps, with little room for compromise.
[music plays]
MARQUEECE HARRIS-DAWSON: “I think there's some things that you say to deal with the spirit of your constituents. There are other things that you say that help move people to vote. And so I think you can't do everything with every statement. And I think you have to understand and be clear about what you're doing whenever you get ready to make a statement. What exactly do you want to achieve?”
This constant back-and-forth of fear-based rhetoric creates a cycle of anxiety and polarization. Each side intensifies the message, keeping their supporters in a state of heightened alert. Over time, this fear-based messaging becomes a psychological trap, keeping people dependent on their chosen side for a sense of security or belonging. This dependency impairs rational decision-making and makes extreme views seem more reasonable.
ARMON OWLIA: "You mentioned we're seeing 'actions' done. Typically, when people think of ‘actions,’ they imagine larger, physical events like Charlottesville, the Black Lives Matter protests, or January 6th. But can these actions also be verbal, like cancel culture or even social media interactions?"
MARYAM KIA-KEATING: “That's a great example. Absolutely. I think we're seeing it in all sorts of ways… I think that’s an interesting element, when you put on this lens of, ‘Why is this happening right now? And are these things connected?’ All of a sudden, you're going to see a number of ways in which cancel culture, the way people interact on social media, the way they interact with one another on a daily basis, even the way neighborhoods and communities interact or don't interact—all of these things you might understand a little bit differently.”
This isn’t just about major events or confrontations. The trauma from polarization shows up in smaller, everyday actions—like cancel culture or aggressive behavior online and in person. These micro-actions further reinforce division and distrust.
MARYAM KIA-KEATING: “There's a real sense of doom and gloom, and a sense that you really can't escape a lot of this.”
When the rubber band snaps, polarization doesn’t end—it starts a new cycle of division within the polarized groups. Echo chambers form, reinforcing polarization as people surround themselves with like-minded individuals. The far-right and far-left view each other as existential threats, deepening the divide and making compromise seem highly improbable.
MARYAM KIA-KEATING: “Trauma really emerges from situations that are terrifying and put our mortality into question. So, these are times where we think, ‘I'm not going to make it,’ or ‘Somebody I love isn't going to make it through, and it's terrifying to me.’ And it also gets exacerbated when something happens that's really quite shocking.”
These echo chambers, driven by fear, loyalty, and schadenfreude—"pleasure in someone else’s misfortune”—create an environment where societal PTSD becomes the norm. Each side takes satisfaction in the other’s failures, validating their own beliefs, which hardens the divide and makes common ground less likely.
The pressure to choose sides leaves people frustrated and hopeless, as if polarization is irreparable. What was once functioning political discourse is now fragmented into bubbles, with each group growing more hostile to differing views.
MARYAM KIA-KEATING: “These kinds of conversations, which are very important, but done in this divisive way, will end up with hopelessness and a sense of anger and frustration that there's nothing that can be done rather than conversations that are productive and maybe hope-building and engage people in action together, connect people.”
[music fades]
This cycle of fear and division goes beyond political polarization; it’s about losing our ability to engage in meaningful dialogue and find common solutions. This happens not just at a national level but in cities across America, like San Francisco and Los Angeles.
MARYAM KIA-KEATING: "What would be desirable is for people to feel united, right? Our name as a country is the United States of America."
[music plays]
Unity feels far out of reach when local and national rhetoric perpetuate division. The same political tactics used nationally are mirrored locally.
In San Francisco, we see clear evidence of polarizing rhetoric. Ellen Lee Zhou, a former public health worker and leading Republican mayoral candidate, has voiced support for conservative policies. She admitted attending the pro-Trump rally on January 6, 2021, but she denies involvement in the violence at the Capitol.
ELLEN LEE ZHOU: “The government should be empower people to make individual choices, not the government we are facing right now that coerce you: no vaccine, no job, no vaccine, you can’t eat outside. Those are BS. As a 2024 mayor candidate, I’m letting you know I’m the only choice that you can trust.”
Zhou’s rhetoric mirrors national conservative rhetoric—pitting personal freedoms against government overreach. In liberal San Francisco, her language is both shocking and divisive, aligning with Trump-era policies often rejected by the city’s progressive majority.
Then there’s Daniel Lurie, a Democrat and philanthropist, who is polling second behind incumbent Mayor London Breed. Despite connections to influential insiders through his nonprofit, Tipping Point, he positions himself as an outsider. Lurie’s populist rhetoric targets City Hall’s inefficiency and corruption, resonating with voters frustrated by housing and homelessness issues.
DANIEL LURIE: “Our record at Tipping Point is one I am incredibly proud of—we’ve raised over $500 million to tackle issues of housing and homelessness and early childhood education. My board at Tipping Point paid for all overhead, and I am so proud of our record there. We have such a better track record of getting things done than these City Hall insiders.”
Lurie’s populist "insiders vs. outsiders" framing mirrors national rhetoric, pushing a "David vs. Goliath" narrative where none exists, even in a progressive city like San Francisco.
In Los Angeles, progressive Democrat Ysabel Jurado challenges incumbent Kevin de León for a City Council seat. Jurado positions herself as a voice for the people, opposing corruption and entrenched politicians like de León, who faces a racism scandal. Though both are Democrats, Jurado leans farther left, framing de León’s leadership as part of the problem.
YSABEL JURADO: “I’m Ysabel Jurado, I’m running for City Council because I’m sick and tired of these career politicians using City Hall for their personal interests and corruption and scandals and pocketbook, and I am from and for this community. I’ve lived here all of my life.”
Jurado’s rhetoric echoes the grassroots, anti-establishment style of leftist populism, offering an alternative to mainstream Democratic leadership. While calling out quote-unquote career politicians is often associated with the far right, it’s also a hallmark of far-left populism, where leaders position themselves as advocates for the people against political elites.
Republican Congresswoman Michelle Steel, representing California’s 45th District, focuses on fiscal conservatism and limited government. She’s faced criticism for inflating immigration stats, claiming more than 5 million illegal border crossings since President Biden took office. This aligns with the broader Republican narrative, stoking fears about border security and government inefficiency.
MICHELLE STEEL: “Let’s be clear: The crisis at our Southern border is still out of control. Since President Biden took office, more than 5.5 million illegal crossings have occurred, yet he continues to pursue policies that make the situation worse.”
Steel’s rhetoric about the number of illegal crossings at the time of her speech in August 2023 overinflates the real total by about 400,000 individuals. It also omits that more than 55% of these encounters–not crossings–resulted in migrants being expelled under pandemic-era Title 42. The rhetoric follows the pattern of stoking fear and frustration, common among conservative politicians at both local and national levels.
[music fades]
National or local, the same patterns emerge. Rhetoric fueling societal PTSD spreads through every debate, campaign, and conversation. When leaders escalate tensions, fear and division ripple through communities. The stakes—housing, health care, education, and economic stability—are urgent.
This isn’t just about political factions fighting for control—it affects everyone, from jobs to family safety. When leaders paint opponents as existential threats, it fuels societal PTSD and deepens division, making dialogue harder. This is especially evident in issues like homelessness, which is experienced by more than 180,000 people in California.
[music plays]
DR. JEFFREY SCHONBERG: “My name is Dr. Jeffrey Schonberg and I'm currently the academic coordinator and a lecturer in the Department of Global Health at UC San Diego. Before that, I was at San Francisco State for a number of years in the Department of Anthropology.”
Schonberg, an ethnographer, has seen firsthand the linkage between homelessness in California and the mental health crisis, compounded by systemic failures and polarizing rhetoric.
DR. JEFFREY SCHONBERG: “The language is those who refuse services. It's not necessarily just about, ‘OK, we don't have services or we do.’ And, of course, what is not being recognized is why are those services being refused? Folks, you know, in my experience, you know, for many years of being, you know, hanging out within various homeless encampments, you know, everyone wants some sort of service, actually.”
For many unhoused people, rhetoric about their lives becomes deeply personal, feeding a cycle of distrust in local authorities and services. Public discourse shapes not only policies but also how people interact at the community level. This environment of isolation and hostility profoundly impacts mental health. For many, being unhoused isn’t just about lacking shelter, it’s about losing trust in a system meant to help them. The trauma of experiencing homelessness is worsened by policies that fail to address the root causes of mental illness, poverty, and systemic neglect.
DR. JEFFREY SCHONBERG: “In my field work that I was doing at the time in San Francisco, we really saw the way that this had just these profoundly negative effects on folks.”
People on the front lines confirm this: political rhetoric worsens the suffering of the unhoused, using them as political pawns without offering real support.
JENNIFER FRIEDENBACH: “There's the same process of demonizing the population, you know, in order for a political wedge to be effective, the very first step the policymaker has to take is to demonize that community.”
That’s Jennifer Friedenbach, executive director of the Coalition on Homelessness in San Francisco. She highlights the devastating effects of criminalizing the unhoused, explaining how superficial quote-unquote solutions fail to address the underlying issues.
This toxic rhetoric seeps into public consciousness, influencing how housed people view and interact with their homeless neighbors.
JENNIFER FRIEDENBACH: “People need a reality check. They need to know how long the waitlist is for housing and that we don’t have enough funding in the budget right now to house all those folks. That would probably, have people look at things a little differently than, ‘Oh, this per…,’ instead of lying and saying, ‘Oh, this person was offered housing and they said no,’ which wasn’t true and then they blame the person and say, ‘Oh, you’re out here of your own accord,’ and then they get mad at them for being there.”
Friedenbach explains that rhetoric around homelessness often oversimplifies the issue, pitting housed people against the unhoused. This polarization complicates addressing real problems like affordable housing, mental health services, and employment opportunities.
JENNIFER FRIEDENBACH: “Late seventies, early eighties, we cut our federal housing by 76%. That's why we had our big wave of mass homelessness in the United States. So you have to look at the root cause and then make the corrections and resources are needed. How are we expecting to get San Franciscans to support more resources going to address this issue? If they're constantly hearing from policymakers that none of the programs are working when in fact, a lot of them are.”
Mistrust is a learned defense, not stubbornness, and it’s rooted in past mistreatment. Rejecting services is often self-preservation, not defiance.
DR. JEFFREY SCHONBERG: “Most folks who are refusing services are refusing services because they've been harmed by those services in the past, straight up. There's very little trust, there's absolutely no trust, in that even those benevolent organizations oftentimes are confronted with this idea of mistrust.”
The quote-unquote choice narrative—that homeless people refuse services—is harmful and justifies harsh tactics. In reality, many services are inadequate, unavailable, or inaccessible, particularly for those with disabilities or mental health challenges.
There’s a disconnect between political rhetoric and the reality of homelessness. Being treated as an outsider or a problem to be 'cleaned up' has long-term mental health consequences for the unhoused.
JENNIFER FRIEDENBACH: “For a lot of folks, they end up giving up hope, they lose trust and they feel like nothing is ever going to be, I'm never going to be able to get in housing. So screw it. I'm not even going to try. Right? So the hopelessness really drives a lot of, you know, the depression, it drives suicide.”
This constant displacement and dehumanization fosters deep mistrust between the unhoused and the institutions meant to support them.
[music fades]
Consequently, many feel abandoned and alienated, making it hard to believe that assistance is genuine or will lead to lasting change.
The breakdown of trust affects not just the unhoused but public health systems and services. This mistrust extends beyond homelessness, seen in responses to crises like the COVID-19 pandemic.
[music plays]
DR. JEFFREY KLAUSNER: “I'm Dr. Jeffrey Klausner, I am a professor of clinical medicine, infectious diseases, public health at University of Southern California, Keck School of Medicine.”
During the worst of the pandemic, public health measures became tools of division, further polarizing the country instead of fostering trust.
Mistrust in public health systems arises not only from individual experiences but from how communication is handled during crises. Klausner explains that public health failures during COVID stemmed not from a lack of medical solutions but from ineffective communication.
DR. JEFFREY KLAUSNER: “And there was a lot more use of political rhetoric, in a negative way. So as, health officials kind of press down on the population, if you will, to protect people, to require different kinds of controls, either on movement or vaccination or jobs or different things, people push back with rhetoric that casted a lot of doubt that caused confusion and ultimately undermined a lot of public health efforts.”
DR. JEFFREY KLAUSNER: “The basis of engaging with the public, it has to be on a foundation of trust."
Klausner, who was a deputy health officer in San Francisco from 1998 to 2011, argues that a major mistake during the pandemic was failing to build the successful partnerships seen during the AIDS crisis of the 1980s and 1990s.
DR. JEFFREY KLAUSNER: “So it took us a while in the response to HIV/AIDS, to really recognize that to be effective in HIV prevention and expanding AIDS treatment, we had a partner with the community, and not only partner, but often allow the community to lead.”
But, during COVID-19, the country saw mandates result in fear-based messaging, alienating many communities.
DR. JEFFREY KLAUSNER: “Public speech advocates were suing the county for shutting down public commentary on a county website. And that public commentary was used as a vehicle by people proposing a very dismissive view around COVID, a very anti-mask, anti-testing, anti-vaccination viewpoint.”
The problem worsened with pervasive uncertainty and inconsistent communication. Public health officials needed to acknowledge that not every answer was clear from the start, which is crucial for gaining public trust.
DR. JEFFREY KLAUSNER: “Part of that trust is developed by health officials and public health communicating that they don't know everything, that there is some uncertainty, that, you know, they're in this journey together.”
This erosion of trust didn’t just harm immediate public health outcomes—it’s had longer-term consequences. Misinformation-filled public discourse amplified these problems, driving anxiety and stress, especially among younger people.
DR. JEFFREY KLAUSNER: “Yeah, I think in Los Angeles and in many places around the country, I mean, we've seen a lot of adolescent and young adult distress, stress, increase in anxiety, increase in mental health diagnoses. I mean, there's just more and more demand on the mental health system. And in my own family and my family and my friends, I see this in young adults between 15 and 25 that they are more stressed and having more anxiety and mental health issues. And certainly some of that is due to this kind of dissonance between, you know, ‘OK, you have to wear a mask outside. You need to wear a mask at the beach,’ and wanting to comply with that. And then hearing, you know, the opposite, that there's no evidence that outdoor masking has any benefit.”
This isn’t just a health issue—it’s a communication crisis, extending beyond COVID-19.
[music fades]
Misinformation and divisive rhetoric fuel mistrust in public health systems, eroding faith in institutions as a whole. As mistrust deepens, people resist guidelines and policies, leading to greater social unrest. This cycle of broken communication and rising fear contributes to mental health crises, like societal PTSD, fueling political polarization and driving communities apart.
Failing to address these patterns only reinforces them. Public health policies are meant to protect the collective good, but when paired with divisive rhetoric or unclear communication, they can backfire. Instead of uniting us against common challenges, they heighten isolation and fear, deepening the societal PTSD that has been building for years. Once again, Dr. Maryam Kia-Keating.
[music plays]
MARYAM KIA-KEATING: "It's just like lifting weights, right? You can, if you rest, put the weights down, and your muscles have a moment to reset, and then you could lift them again. But if you did, you know, 50 reps in a row, you would have to put them down, right? You wouldn't get through it, and it's the same thing with information, but we're not putting anything down."
We’re overwhelmed with information—social media, 24-hour news, political speeches, and health campaigns all competing for attention. This nonstop stream of conflicting messages blurs fact from fiction, leaving little space for reflection or informed decisions. The term "information overload," often used in reference to neurodivergence, captures this reality well.
Many of these individuals instinctively avoid this overload, as it can temporarily shut down their ability to function.
As a society, we grapple with information overload, yet instead of recoiling, we remain entrenched. We scroll, react, and feed into this system, contributing to the societal PTSD that grips us. This isn’t merely systemic—it’s complacent.
MARYAM KIA-KEATING: “We get complacent, you know, and I think it's really important for us, especially when it's one thing to say, ‘Oh, I'm just interested in what recipes this person is going to recommend to me,’ and it's low stakes, right? But when we start moving into these high-stakes conversations that have real implications for our lives, as well as the lives of the next generation, then we really need to take pause and critically think about, you know, who we're putting in these leadership positions and what we really want from them.”
The flaws of the system reflect our own shortcomings. The societal PTSD often linked to national crises or political manipulation persists through our inaction. Politicians perpetuate mechanisms of division, fear, and anxiety, but they do so with our consent—whether active or passive. Indifference, fatigue, and discomfort breed complacency.
Social media algorithms are engineered to keep us engaged with content that confirms our existing views. Instead of broadening our perspectives, these platforms narrow our worldview, amplifying what we already believe and distorting our understanding of reality. Instead of fostering connections, they can stoke division and worsen societal PTSD, prioritizing attention over truth. Posts with more likes and shares seem more valid, even when they incite fear or resentment.
MARYAM KIA-KEATING: “As individuals, we can only take the steps in our own lives. And certainly, for those who are caregivers or parents raising the next generation, it’s crucial to be intentional about helping to make sure that, because you're making determinations for somebody else, not just yourself, about the time they spend, you create space for quiet and for taking a pause.”
This isn’t merely a critique of the system—it’s a call to recognize our responsibility within it.
MARYAM KIA-KEATING: “We really need to first acknowledge and recognize that that's what's happening. And then, we need to actually take the time to try to gather and understand multiple perspectives.”
* * *
Our leadership shapes our culture. Elect extreme politicians, and extreme behavior follows. When people crave division and their leaders feed it, it further entrenches harmful narratives.
We often overestimate our political knowledge. Researcher Ian Anson found that roughly 70 percent of people are overconfident in said knowledge, making them less open to correcting falsehoods. This creates a dangerous trap. False confidence blinds us to misconceptions. We hold onto emotional opinions, unaware of how shallow our understanding really is.
MARYAM KIA-KEATING: “We really want to start with recognition and then move to being intentional, returning to those central core values, realizing that there's so much damage and harm that comes from fear-based rhetoric.”
This information overload isn’t just a mental health issue—it’s a social crisis. Our decision to remain engaged in this constant stream of information means we are not merely victims of a broken system—we are its enablers. The politicians may have laid the groundwork, but we allow it to thrive by failing to change how we engage with it.
MARYAM KIA-KEATING: “We can, but most people don't necessarily go into nature and leave their smartphone behind and say, ‘I'm really taking a break from all of this.’ We're having a really hard time figuring out how to regulate our own information uptake, or intake, and it's really challenging in this very high-speed world, and so, I think that's a piece of it.”
Acknowledging the ripple effects of our choices is essential. Every meaningful engagement—whether online, at home, or in public discourse—shapes our collective reality. By prioritizing understanding over winning arguments, we can create an environment conducive to dialogue and healing. This collective responsibility extends to larger social issues like homelessness. Politicians often exploit homelessness as a political wedge, diverting attention from systemic problems by blaming vulnerable individuals. This dehumanization enables society to deflect responsibility for genuine solutions. Once again, Jennifer Friedenbach with San Francisco’s Coalition on Homelessness.
JENNIFER FRIEDENBACH: “And so, you know, it’s got kind of a little bit more liberal city, they don’t get away with bashing on immigrants. So they kind of use homelessness as this sort of shell to kind of encase a lot of people. I, you know, unfortunately, homeless people are disproportionately represented by different oppressed communities.”
Shifting blame onto individuals for their circumstances, away from systemic issues creates narratives that not only dehumanize the affected but also cultivate hopelessness and exacerbates mental health outcomes.
The societal PTSD we’ve discussed affects not only those directly targeted by harmful rhetoric but also fosters a pervasive sense of helplessness and anxiety for everyone.
Public health messaging also suffers under the weight of divisive political rhetoric. During the pandemic, we witnessed a rapid erosion of trust in public health measures when they became politicized. Rebuilding that trust requires transparency and open dialogue between leaders and the public.
JEFFREY KLAUSNER: “And I actually learned that later on, more recently at USC, which had a very successful vaccination program, awareness and education program… wasn't based on, let's say, facts. It was based on an emotional drive to protect grandma. And that's what it was called. It was called Protect Grandma. And these were, you know, videos, and this was targeted to the Latinx population in East Los Angeles, mostly, and it was in Spanish.”
Dr. Klausner emphasizes the need for humility and transparency from public health leaders, noting how their approach impacts trust.
JEFFREY KLAUSNER: "So I think one thing is to communicate that uncertainty. We're always reluctant to tell people, ‘Well, nothing works or we don't know how it works.’"
As we continue this discussion on “divided.,” it will become increasingly clear that the problems we face—political division, societal PTSD, misinformation—may seem overwhelming, but there are solutions, and they’re things all of us can do.
[music fades out]
Small, deliberate actions, such as pausing before reacting, choosing words thoughtfully, and encouraging open dialogue, create significant change. It may be cliché, but it works.
Rhetorical mindfulness is not merely about awaiting large-scale policy shifts; it’s about how we engage with the world daily. A single conversation rooted in empathy can shift perspectives, creating ripples that extend beyond our immediate circles. Recognizing our power to reshape discourse offers a chance to transform society. We've explored how societal PTSD, information overload, and divisive rhetoric distort our reality. Systems meant to inform often blur the truth, making it hard to separate fact from noise. Too often, we stay comfortable in the fog they create.
We can’t afford to stay in the fog any longer—the stakes are too high. This isn’t just about politics; it’s about who we are as individuals and a collective. While leaders set the tone, it’s up to us to ensure our conversations are rooted in understanding, empathy, and truth. The task is daunting, but history shows we rise best when our backs are against the wall, such as now.
What we do next is not just the responsibility of our institutions, media, or politicians—it’s up to us. Will we continue to let the fog dictate our reality, or will we take that critical step back, clear the mirror, and see what’s really happening?
This moment, like many before in our history, is an inflection point. It’s time to unite, seek clarity, and work toward creating a better, more just America.
Look in the mirror again. Can you see clearly?
[music plays]
Thank you for listening to “divided.,” where we explore what separates us—and how we can find common ground.
This episode was produced by Pen Is The Sword Productions in collaboration with AfroLA. The views expressed in this episode are those of the individuals involved and do not necessarily reflect the positions of Pen Is The Sword or AfroLA.
Executive Producers are Armon Owlia and Dana Amihere.
This episode was edited by Aaricka Washington, Katie Licari, and Dana Amihere.
Special thanks to Marqueece Harris-Dawson, Maryam Kia-Keating, Jeffrey Schonberg, Jeffrey Klausner, and Jennifer Friedenbach for their contributions to this episode.
The musical score was composed with the help of James Ingram and Epidemic Sound.
Portions of original content came from NBCUniversal, CBS, the Bernie Sanders campaign, Donald J. Trump for President 2024, Greene For Congress, CPAC, Ellen Lee Zhou for Mayor 2024, SoJannelleTV on YouTube, the San Francisco Chronicle, and KQED.
Follow @afrolanews across social media platforms. Follow “divided.” at @ournationdivided on Instagram. A written transcript of this episode, as well as more content can be found on afrolanews.org/divided and ournationdivided.com.
