In George Orwell’s dystopian classic, Nineteen Eighty-Four, the concept of the Two Minutes Hate is a powerful tool of political control. It is a brief, daily ritual in which the citizens of Oceania are subjected to a propaganda-filled film showing Emmanuel Goldstein, the enemy of the state, as the primary villain.
The exercise compels the people to express their visceral hatred for Goldstein and his followers, the Brotherhood, and then to reaffirm their loyalty to the supreme authority, Big Brother.
While only lasting for two minutes, the hate session served a critical function in maintaining the totalitarian regime’s control over its citizens.
In today’s world, especially in the United States, the political establishment has cultivated a modern-day equivalent of this practice through social media—a 24-hour, non-stop cycle of outrage, division, and distraction that mimics the Two Minutes Hate.
The technique is no longer confined to a small, orchestrated window of time but is constantly present, bubbling through every tweet, Facebook post, Instagram story, and viral video.
While we are not explicitly forced to participate in these “hate sessions,” the constant bombardment of partisan content serves the same purpose: to keep the public engaged in a manufactured, artificial conflict that diverts attention away from real political action, like voting in primaries or addressing the systemic issues at the heart of societal inequality.
The political establishment has realized the power of social media in shaping public opinion and steering the discourse. Social media platforms have become the digital equivalent of the telescreen in Orwell’s dystopia, constantly projecting news, opinions, and advertisements that stoke emotions—fear, anger, and resentment.
Every day, millions of people are fed a steady diet of sensationalized headlines, viral political memes, and heated exchanges designed to provoke an emotional reaction, not rational thought.
The bitter polarization between the Republican and Democratic parties in the U.S. has been on the rise since Newt Gingrich’s partisan combat against President Bill Clinton in the 1990s.
Just like the Two Minutes Hate, the point is not for people to critically analyze the situation, but to feel something strongly and quickly.
A clip of a politician making a controversial statement, a news story about an opponent’s scandal, or a dramatic speech on a policy issue all feed into this system.
The goal is to provoke immediate reactions from the audience, who are encouraged to amplify their emotions by sharing, commenting, and expressing their own outrage or support, creating an echo chamber of partisan hatred.
This cycle repeats itself hour after hour, often without giving people the opportunity to digest the information or think through its deeper implications.
In Nineteen Eighty-Four, the Party creates a clear and constant enemy in Emmanuel Goldstein, who is portrayed as the figurehead of dissent, the threat to Big Brother’s rule, and the focus of the public’s hatred.
This focus on a singular enemy is a key tactic of totalitarian control, as it unifies the public in opposition to something they can all agree on. While Goldstein is a convenient scapegoat, it also serves the purpose of distracting the people from questioning the system itself or organizing against the real source of their oppression—the Party, and by extension, the wealthy elites who control the society.
In today’s American political climate, the concept of the “enemy” has been expanded to include not just a single individual but entire political parties, ideologies, and movements. Every day, social media platforms help manufacture these political villains, whether it be a specific candidate, an activist group, or a public figure.
“The current state of political sectarianism produces prejudice, discrimination and cognitive distortion, undermining the ability of government to serve its core functions of representing the people and solving the nation’s problems,” said Eli Finkel, a professor of social psychology at Northwestern University. “Along the way, it makes people increasingly willing to support candidates who undermine democracy and to favor violence in support of their political goals.”
“Things have gotten much more severe in the past decade, and there is no sign we’ve hit bottom,” said Professor James Druckman, an Institute for Policy Research fellow at Northwestern, who sees a “poisonous cocktail” of partisans viewing the other side as different (othering), dislikeable (aversion) and immoral (moralization).
The Northwestern researchers advise that structural fixes are also required, including tweaking social media algorithms to limit the reach of false or hyperpartisan content and incentivizing politicians to appeal to a broader proportion of Americans.
Reforms around campaign finance and partisan gerrymandering are also ways to reduce dangerously divisive behaviors and to generate more robust competition in the marketplace of ideas.
The political establishment, amplified by media outlets and corporate-backed narratives, uses evil tactics to rally people against a common foe. But the enemy is often a constructed caricature, a convenient distraction from the deeper systemic issues—economic inequality, corporate control of politics, and the widening gap between the rich and poor.
Through social media, political leaders and their supporters create narratives around these enemies, ensuring that the outrage is persistent.
The divisions between “us” and “them” grow wider, as people are constantly pitted against one another in a battle of ideological purity.
This serves the dual purpose of keeping people engaged in an endless cycle of division and hatred, while also distracting them from the more nuanced issues of policy and systemic reform.
In Orwell’s novel, the Two Minutes Hate serves as a tool to expend the energy of the population on a daily basis.
By directing their intense emotions toward the enemy, the people’s ability to think critically or take meaningful political action is neutralized.
In the real world, social media operates similarly by directing the public’s attention away from real political engagement and into the realm of reactive emotional responses.
Rather than using the energy to challenge the entrenched power structures—whether through voting, participating in meaningful protests, or demanding real policy changes—the public is instead encouraged to focus on superficial conflicts.
A single tweet from a political figure can set off a chain reaction of social media posts, reactions, and news cycles that leave little time for reflection or organized action.
In this environment, the overwhelming noise of constant outrage and divisiveness makes it difficult to focus on structural issues like corporate influence in politics, systemic racism, wealth inequality, or the erosion of democracy.
Even when there are tangible opportunities for political change, such as primaries or grassroots organizing efforts, the emotional distractions of the 24-hour outrage cycle keep the public passive.
The endless supply of “hot takes” and viral controversies prevents people from engaging in sustained political action. It’s not uncommon for the political focus to shift away from important policy debates toward scandal-driven spectacles that serve the interests of the powerful—those who benefit from a distracted, disengaged electorate.
The Two Minutes Hate was also designed to cultivate a deep loyalty to Big Brother. The public’s hatred of Goldstein was followed by an affirmation of love for the state and for the figure of Big Brother, reinforcing the power structure.
Social media today performs a similar function by constantly reinforcing the political binary: you are either with “us” or you are with “them.”
These emotional divides, further amplified by algorithm-driven content, create a toxic loyalty that discourages independent thought and debate.
In the United States, this loyalty is demanded of individuals who align with one of the two major political parties.
Social media feeds us the narrative that every action, every statement, and every policy is a litmus test for loyalty to either the Democratic or Republican cause.
Nuanced conversations about policy, governance, or moral philosophy are replaced by demands for ideological purity. If you do not express your hatred for the enemy of the moment or your unwavering love for your team, you risk being cast out as a traitor.
Just like Orwell’s Two Minutes Hate, social media today has become a tool for those in power to keep the public emotionally occupied, constantly reinforcing partisan divides and drawing attention away from the real work of political change.
The result is a society where political engagement is defined not by thoughtful, productive discourse but by fleeting emotional reactions that never lead to meaningful action.
Just as the Two Minutes Hate was designed to prevent the people of Oceania from ever truly challenging Big Brother, the 24-hour outrage cycle keeps Americans locked in a state of perpetual distraction, ensuring that their anger remains focused outward, rather than being channeled into reform or revolution.
Still, there is hope that this condition may not be permanent.
“If the differences between Democrats and Republicans really were as extreme as Americans believe, that could help to explain the contempt,” said Finkel. “But these differences exist more in people’s heads than in reality. There’s a whole lot of common ground, but Americans struggle to see it.”
“It is time to lift our political discourse out of the gutter to convince ordinary Americans that we must rise up to the responsibility of citizenship,” says Lisa McCormick, the only Democrat who challenged disgraced former US Senator Bob Menendez in the 2018 primary election.
While Americans seem to hate each other, McCormick remains optimistic that we can overcome what seems to be an endless cycle of outrage and division that consumes the energy and attention of millions of people every day.