Way political upheavals shifted perspectives

Published on 11/8/2025 by Ron Gadd

Photo by Leo_Visions on Unsplash

When the Ground Shifts: How Upheavals Rewrite What We Believe

Political upheavals aren’t just about new leaders or fresh election slogans; they fundamentally reshape the way citizens interpret reality. Think of a city after a major earthquake: the streets look the same, but the map in your head has been redrawn. In the political realm, the “map” is our collective sense of what problems matter, who to trust, and which policies feel urgent.

Recent events illustrate this vividly. In 2025, Austria’s President Alexander Van der Bellen—once a Green Party figure—appointed Herbert Kickl, the hard‑right leader of the Freedom Party (FPO), to form a coalition after centrist parties failed to cobble together a government. The move wasn’t just a power shuffle; it signaled a deep‑seated shift in public frustration over inflation, immigration, and perceived governmental inertia. When voters swing dramatically toward an outsider, the narrative that once framed politics as a rational debate over policy turns into a story about survival, identity, and emotional resonance.

From Ideology to Emotion: The Science of Polarization’s Evolution

For decades scholars treated polarization as a clash of policy positions—liberal versus conservative tax codes, progressive versus restrictive social policies. A 2023 literature review by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace shows the academic consensus has pivoted. Researchers now argue that polarization is less about the content of disagreements and more about the feelings attached to them.

Key observations from that review include:

Emotional intensity has outpaced ideological distance; voters react more to how an issue makes them feel than to the specifics of the policy.
Identity fusion—the merging of personal and group identity—drives loyalty to a political tribe, even when that tribe’s stance contradicts previously held beliefs.
Affective polarization (the dislike of the opposing side) fuels a feedback loop where media, social platforms, and political elites amplify emotive language to mobilize supporters.

This evolution matters because it explains why facts alone rarely move the needle. When a debate is framed as a moral battle, presenting neutral data can feel like an attack on one’s identity. The result is a political environment where “winning” means confirming an emotional narrative, not necessarily solving a policy problem.

Disinformation, Hate Speech, and the Echo Chambers That Redefine Reality

If emotion is the new fuel, then disinformation and hate speech become the accelerants. A cross‑country study published in PMC (2023) traced how polarized societies have struggled with public health responses, climate action, and even interpretations of domestic terrorism—all because misinformation spreads unchecked.

The paper highlights several mechanisms:

Algorithmic echo chambers that prioritize content matching users’ existing views, creating a self‑reinforcing loop.
Narrative framing that ties factual claims to existential threats (“the virus is a weapon of the elite”), making denial a protective stance.
Hate speech that not only vilifies out‑groups but also normalizes extreme policy proposals, lowering the barrier for radical ideas to enter mainstream discourse.

A quick look at recent headlines illustrates the point. During the COVID‑19 pandemic, polarized messaging led to stark differences in mask usage and vaccine uptake across U.S. states, a pattern researchers linked to partisan media ecosystems. In Europe, climate‑change denial has often been couched in nationalist rhetoric, framing environmental regulation as an infringement on “sovereign freedom.

What this means for perspective shifts: when people receive a steady stream of emotionally charged, fact‑distorted content, their worldview recalibrates around those narratives. Over time, the baseline of what feels plausible expands, making previously fringe ideas appear mainstream.

Quick snapshot of the disinformation pipeline

Source generation – partisan outlets, bots, or foreign actors craft sensational stories.
Amplification – social‑media algorithms boost content with high engagement (often anger or fear).
Normalization – repeated exposure leads audiences to accept the narrative as fact.
Policy impact – elected officials echo the narrative, solidifying the shift in public opinion.

Real‑World Ripples: Austria’s Coalition Crisis and the Global Echo

Austria’s 2025 coalition drama is a textbook case of how upheaval rewires political perception. The previous center‑left/center‑right coalition struggled to contain spiraling inflation—estimated at around 7% in 2024 according to Statistics Austria—and faced criticism over a perceived lack of decisive immigration policy. Public sentiment, measured by multiple polls, showed a significant erosion of trust in traditional parties, dropping from roughly 55% in 2020 to below 30% by early 2025.

When President Van der Bellen turned to Herbert Kickl, the FPO capitalized on two intertwined narratives:

Economic survival – positioning the far‑right as the only force willing to “protect Austrian jobs” from global market pressures.
Cultural protection – framing immigration as an existential threat to Austrian identity, a theme resonating strongly in regions that felt left behind by EU integration.

The result? A coalition that, while technically legal, sparked protests across Vienna and Graz, with demonstrators on both sides accusing each other of undermining democracy.

Crisis accelerates radicalization: Economic or security shocks give extremist parties a foothold they previously lacked.
Media framing matters: When mainstream outlets highlight “government failure” without offering nuanced analysis, they unintentionally feed the narrative of “the system is broken.”
International ripple effects: Neighboring countries watch Austria’s experiment closely, adjusting their own coalition calculations in response to voter mood swings.

Takeaways for policymakers

Invest in transparent communication – clear, consistent data releases can blunt the appeal of sensationalist narratives.
Strengthen cross‑party issue‑based coalitions – focusing on specific, non‑ideological challenges (e.g., climate resilience) can rebuild trust across the spectrum.
Monitor digital amplification – collaborating with platforms to flag coordinated disinformation can reduce the speed at which false narratives spread.

What Comes Next? Navigating a World Where Upheaval Is the New Normal

If history teaches us anything, it’s that political upheavals rarely stay isolated. The Arab Spring, the Brexit referendum, and now the Austrian coalition saga each sparked secondary waves of perspective shifts far beyond their borders.

Hybrid crises – climate events intertwined with economic downturns will produce compound anxieties, magnifying emotional polarization.
Decentralized information hubs – as trust in legacy media wanes, local influencers and niche platforms will gain outsized sway over community narratives.
Policy feedback loops – governments that react to panic‑driven demands (e.g., rapid border closures) may unintentionally validate the fear narratives that drove those demands, deepening polarization.

To keep perspective shifts from becoming runaway trains, stakeholders can adopt a three‑pronged approach:

Data‑driven storytelling – pair hard facts with human‑centered stories that acknowledge emotions without exploiting them.
Deliberative spaces – invest in town halls, citizen assemblies, and online forums that bring opposing sides together under moderated conditions.

In the end, political upheavals are less about the who and more about the why behind shifting worldviews. By recognizing that emotions, disinformation, and crisis narratives are now the primary drivers of perspective, we can design interventions that address the root causes—not just the symptoms—of a polarized world.