Order Jamie Glazov’s new book, ‘United in Hate: The Left’s Romance with Tyranny, Terror, and Hamas’: HERE.

When President Trump invited members of Congress to stand if they believed the government should prioritize American citizens over illegal immigrants, many Democrats remained seated. When he introduced a grieving mother whose daughter had been murdered, several members again withheld visible assent. Protest signs were raised. Faces hardened. Applause was selective.

The moment was instantly polarizing. Supporters of the president saw callousness. Defenders of the protest saw principled opposition. But beyond the immediate partisan reaction lies a deeper question — one that Arthur Schopenhauer might have recognized.

Schopenhauer drew a distinction between ignorance and stupidity. Ignorance can be corrected; it is the absence of information. Stupidity, by contrast, is resistant to correction because it is rooted not in lack of knowledge but in the dominance of will. When will governs reason, a person no longer evaluates propositions on their merits. They respond according to allegiance, pride, or identity.

The modern legislative chamber has become a theater of will. Remaining seated during a policy disagreement is not remarkable. Congress is adversarial by design. But refusing even symbolic assent during moments of broadly human significance reveals something else. It suggests that political identity now filters even the most elemental civic gestures.

This is not about immigration policy. One can oppose the president’s proposals vigorously. One can dispute his framing. But when the mere act of standing for a grieving mother becomes entangled with partisan loyalty, something deeper is at work.

Schopenhauer warned that when individuals are governed by will rather than reason, contradiction does not persuade them. Evidence does not soften them. They do not ask, “What is right in this moment?” They ask, “What serves my side?”

In such a climate, even shared civic rituals become casualties. State of the Union addresses were once moments when political rivals performed a thin but meaningful solidarity — applause for national achievements, silence for solemnity, respect for private grief. That ritual did not erase disagreement. It affirmed that beneath conflict lay a common civic foundation.

What unfolded in the chamber suggested that foundation is eroding. The refusal to stand was not an argument. It was a signal. It communicated unwavering opposition — but at a cost. To many watching, it appeared cold, overly choreographed, and politically misjudged. Even outlets not aligned with the president noted that the protest optics fell flat.

This is where Schopenhauer’s insight becomes uncomfortable. Stupidity, in his formulation, is not a measure of IQ. It is the incapacity to connect action and consequence. It is the failure to foresee how one’s behavior will be perceived beyond the immediate circle of allies.

If political actors cannot recognize that withholding visible sympathy during moments of tragedy will alienate large segments of the public, they are not demonstrating moral superiority. They are demonstrating blindness to consequence. And that blindness is rarely confined to one party. But in this instance, it was displayed unmistakably on one side of the aisle.

The American public is exhausted by performative outrage. It is suspicious of theatrical protest that appears detached from common human instinct. When opposition becomes reflexive — when even civic courtesy is sacrificed to partisan signaling — the result is not strength. It is estrangement.

Schopenhauer would likely have said that when will hardens into identity, reason is no longer consulted. The question ceases to be, “Is this a moment for shared humanity?” It becomes, “Will this gesture benefit my faction?” That shift is corrosive.

Democratic politics depends not merely on debate but on minimal gestures of mutual recognition. If legislators cannot rise for grief without calculating partisan implications, then the chamber ceases to be a forum of public reason and becomes a stage set for tribal affirmation. The protest may have felt satisfying to those who participated. But satisfaction is not the same as wisdom.

Schopenhauer’s warning was not about intellectual deficiency. It was about the moral and psychological rigidity that prevents self-correction. When action is dictated by allegiance rather than reflection, the capacity to perceive consequences diminishes. In that sense, the episode in the chamber was not merely a partisan moment. It was a philosophical one.

It revealed how far political identity has supplanted civic instinct — and how resistant modern politics has become to the simplest corrective question: “How will this appear to those outside our tribe?”

When that question is no longer asked, the cost is borne not only by a party, but by the public sphere itself.