Pledges to work for more unity or “less polarization” are a standard post election ritual. We’ve heard them from President Bush and Senator Kerry. They’re hard to take seriously. Our age practices what I call “the politics of self-esteem.” Political elites of all stripes – elected officials, activists, commentators – try to make their followers feel better by belittling the other side. By this, I don’t mean that there aren’t real differences over issues or that elections don’t alter some government policies. What I mean is that, under the cover of these familiar conflicts, politicians and opinion leaders are really engaged in a contest to raise the spirits and affirm the beliefs of their supporters. This is what many Americans now want. They desire elevated self-esteem.

We should not be surprised. The psychologist Abraham Maslow (1908-70) famously theorized that all people have a “hierarchy of needs,” moving from basic requirements for food to love and then to esteem and “self-actualization.” In a mainly prosperous society, politics drifts in the same direction. Government has already satisfied many economic needs. It now pays about $1.2 trillion annually in personal benefits (Social Security, Medicare, food stamps, etc.). Faded is the terror of the Depression (1930s’ average unemployment: 18%). Economic issues still matter, but absent some crisis, they matter less.

By contrast, people still want to feel good about themselves. The post-election elation of Bush voters and wretchedness of Kerry supporters cannot be explained by objective differences on policies. Although a President Kerry might have governed much differently from Mr. Bush, their positions were similar on many issues. Both pledged to cut the budget deficit by half. Mr. Kerry promised to keep most of Mr. Bush’s tax cuts, except for people with incomes exceeding $200,000. Both pledged to kill terrorists. Mr. Kerry said he would pursue the war in Iraq, only more competently.

Even on gay marriage, the two were close. Both opposed legalizing gay marriage and supported “civil unions.” That’s the midpoint of public opinion. Here’s what the exit polls found: 25% of voters support gay marriage, 35% civil unions and 37% no legal recognition of gay couples. True, Mr. Bush backed a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, and Mr. Kerry didn’t. But the amendment stands little chance of ratification.

Psychology – more than policy – explains the post-election highs and lows. In American democracy, the verdict of the majority confers bragging rights that the winners are “in the mainstream” and the losers are someplace else. This thrills the winners and devastates the losers. The fashionable factoid of this election was the discovery that 22% of voters cited “moral values” as the most important issue for them, ahead of those who cited the economy (20%) or terrorism (19%).

These were supposedly “values voters,” mainly right of center and religious. Actually, “values voters” exist all along the political spectrum.

“Every liberal [thinks he’s] intellectually superior to conservatives,” Paul Begala, ex-Clinton administration official, remarked on CNN. “Every conservative I know wants to think of himself as morally superior.” Though these are generalizations (as Mr. Begala admitted), they represent real psychological imperatives. Politics increasingly strives to feed these self-images. The easiest way to make your people feel better is to cast their people as immoral, stupid, evil, corrupt, or greedy. Politics, news and entertainment merge, because all seek to satisfy psychological needs. Michael Moore and Bill O’Reilly are more important political figures than most senators.

America is not a polarized society, though its politics are polarized. “The great mass of American people…are for the most part moderate in their views and tolerant in their manner,” writes political scientist Morris Fiorina of Stanford in his book “Culture War? The Myth of a Polarized America.” General attitudes on race and sexual preference have softened in recent decades. Divisions on political issues exist, but they always have. Great passions are confined mainly to “activists in the political parties and various cause groups (many of whom) do in fact hate each other.”

Just so. Polarization is increasingly the business of politicians, advocacy groups, and opinion leaders. The people who are most polarized like being polarized. They feel good because the other people are bad. Political elites could turn more toward the center, but that would mean appealing to less committed people who draw less of their identities from politics. This seems uninviting. “Good or bad, the split in America now creates a publishing opportunity on both sides of the fence,” Jack Romanos, president of Simon & Schuster, said after the election. “To publish for the middle of the road right now would be suicide.”

The unassailable logic isn’t reassuring. Although America isn’t polarized, our political and press elites are working hard to make it so. The center still holds, but assaulted from all sides, it may not forever.