{
  "id": 5724828,
  "title": "Følelsenes tid",
  "url": "https://urgent.news/2026/09/05/f-lelsenes-tid",
  "topic": "culture",
  "section": "Culture",
  "published": "2026-09-05T05:55:19.000Z",
  "source": {
    "name": "E24 Norway",
    "slug": "e24-norway",
    "url": "https://e24.no/internasjonal-oekonomi/i/WvWkXd/foelelsenes-tid"
  },
  "original_language": "en",
  "account": "In 2012, journalist Kathrine Aspaas published the book \"The Time of Joyfulness\", stating \"We are moving towards a more peaceful and joyful time.\" However, she later reflected on how this prediction may not have fully manifested, as the world appeared less harmonious. Despite this, the book sparked thoughts about the current political landscape, where political movements are driven by emotional engagement rather than dry, bureaucratic technocracy. Technocracy emphasizes expert knowledge, whereas political movements today are characterized by their ability to connect with emotions and capture the mood, rather than relying on extensive research, facts, or thorough reforms. In the aftermath of World War II, the 1940s were a time of intense emotions reacting to the violent emotions of war. Politics was supposed to be rational, intellectual, and technocratic, but the tendency has been so strong that many academics declared \"the death of ideologies\". The focus shifted from emotional compassion to rational administration, pragmatic and knowledge-based policies to improve people's livelihoods. Despite this, it seemed impossible to envision politics without the American term \"policy wonks\" – experts who can explain and implement concrete policies. For a decade, this trend persisted, until the West experienced an innovation wave in the 1980s. While this period brought both emotions and concrete reform proposals, center-left parties responded by defining the 1990s as Bill Clinton (USA), Tony Blair (UK), Gerhard Schröder (Germany) and Jens Stoltenberg (Norway). All charismatic leaders, but heavily equipped with thorough reforms. Even rhetorical giants like Barack Obama provided concrete policy underpinning their passionate rhetoric. Today, political movements seem captivated by emotion, not concrete policy. They are more like political therapists than political craftsmen. Donald Trump, for example, is a master at tapping into parts of the public sentiment, but his leadership style often includes personal favoritism, nepotism, and half-baked proposals. The ambitious \"DOGE\" project aimed at slimming down the government failed, while his trade wars became chaotic, at times cruel, and ended in defeat at the Supreme Court. Even after eight years as president, it's hard to see any substantial reforms remaining, but perhaps that's not the point. Trump is a master of politics in the era of emotions. In the UK, Reform UK gained traction, only to later implement concrete and feasible policies under the leadership of a theologian. In Germany, the Alternative for Germany (AfD) party won power in a state for the first time in autumn, but it's clearer what the party is against (elites, immigrants) than what their comprehensive program would be. The same is visible on the opposing side, where the radical left-wing may be regaining momentum. A prominent figure is New York's Mayor Zohran Mamdani, whose most discussed proposal is to open municipal owned supermarkets in the megacity. It's a concrete proposal, but not particularly thorough. Readers who have followed me so far might expect me to rant about this emotive politics. Call it illogical, unsavory, and unproductive. But that's not the point. Those who believe emotions have no place in politics have always been wrong. Politics can't be merely a dry and bureaucratic exercise that easily follows a calculator. It has been evident in the last week. We have collectively erupted in emotions following King Harald's death. Some find it excessive and irrational; they should. For these emotions, they are not just glass on top of the Norwegian collective, but the Norwegian collective itself. Norway is a geographical entity, a state, institutions, and a bureaucratic governance system – all the concrete and solid things. However, the Norwegian collective is also what we recognize, the feeling of being together. Of course, it's okay to hope that the time of emotions will pass. Good luck with that strategy... Better to acknowledge that emotions are real and important – both good and bad. Just as the Salvation Army's founder pointed out that there's no reason for the Devil to have all the good music, there's no reason for the extremes to monopolize political emotions. Those who use their brains understand the value of the heart.",
  "summary": "Glem fakta og utredninger. Det er følelser som styrer politikken nå.",
  "key_points": [
    "Journalist Kathrine Aspaas predicted a more peaceful, joyful time in 2012.",
    "Political movements today are driven by emotional engagement rather than technocratic policies."
  ],
  "editors_take": "The resurgence of emotional engagement in politics marks a shift away from technocratic decision-making, giving advantage to leaders who can tap into public sentiment, even if their policies are not thoroughly researched or concrete.",
  "illustration": null,
  "coverage": {
    "outlets": 1,
    "also_reported_by": []
  },
  "ai_generated": true,
  "disclaimer": "Summaries, key points and the editor’s take are written by software from other outlets’ reporting and may contain errors — always check the linked original."
}