The Use of Fear in Politics

H.P. Lovecraft, widely regarded as one of the greatest horror writers of all time, once claimed that “the oldest and strongest emotion of mankind is fear, and the oldest and strongest kind of fear is fear of the unknown.” While fear has long been used for entertainment, it has more recently entered a more troubling arena: politics. This article examines how fear has been increasingly weaponized in American politics, and what effects it has had on ordinary citizens.

The Weaponization of Fear

Observe the quotes below, all taken while campaigning for the 2024 election:

“Donald Trump is out for unchecked power. He wants a military like Adolf Hitler had, who will be loyal to him, not our Constitution, … [h]e is unhinged, unstable, and given a second term, there would be no one to stop him from pursuing his worst impulses.” – Kamala Harris, Oct 2024

“No, [Kamala Harris is] a Marxist. Her father’s a Marxist. He’s a Marxist professor. It’s very nice. This election is not a choice between Democrats and Republicans. It’s a choice between communism and freedom. That’s what it’s about.” – Donald Trump, Aug 2024

“They come from the dungeons … of the third world from prisons and jails, insane asylums and mental institutions, and she has had them resettled beautifully into your community to prey upon innocent American citizens.” – Donald Trump, Oct 2024

While all three of these quotes address separate subject matters, all three quotes demonstrate how candidates use fear, pairing vivid language with rhetoric that if their opponent wins the 2024 election, Americans will lose their freedoms. The third quote even has a personal aspect. Donald Trump doesn’t just say that immigration will be bad for America, he says that immigrants will settle into YOUR community to prey on innocents around YOU. The emphasis is on your personal safety, rather than what would be best for the nation. Regardless of whether you agree with him, it’s doubtless that the language is intentionally crafted to stoke fear.

It’s important to note that none of these were private statements; all were made in a public setting by the candidate, addressed to the American people.

Obviously, these three quotes cannot be used to definitively prove that politicians’ language has changed, as it’s possible these quotes have been cherry-picked, but looking at other examples of speeches and debates demonstrates a similar use of absolutes, attacks, dangerous rhetoric, and fear.

There are a few examples of how politics looked before fear became such a dominant tool. For example, a 2012 presidential debate between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney opened with a polite exchange, with Obama thanking “Governor Romney” for coming, and Mitt Romney telling everyone that “[i]t’s an honor to be here with you, and I appreciate the chance to be with the president,” before congratulating Obama on his anniversary.

Compare that to the debate between Harris and Trump, where Donald Trump, in his very first answer, claimed that the inflation we have “is really known as a country buster. It breaks up countries,” and that immigrants are “destroying our country. They’re dangerous. They’re at the highest level of criminality.” This rhetoric pushes Americans to believe that inflation won’t just raise prices; it will literally destroy the United States. Same with Trump’s quote about immigration. He isn’t just telling Americans that immigrants will hurt the job market; he’s scaring Americans by saying immigration will literally destroy the United States. 

This isn’t an isolated strong attack in the very beginning that cooled off over the course of the debate, either. Throughout the debate, Donald Trump repeated that Kamala Harris and the Biden Administration were “destroying our country” nine times. In the aforementioned speech between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney, the only use of the word “destroy” was when Obama claimed that “[Obamacare] hasn’t destroyed jobs.” It is absolutely clear that on that stage, there was no weaponization of fear, only two candidates presenting their policies and hoping enough Americans believed that those policies would shape our country for the better. The contrast between these candidates and our current political climate is a stark example of how fear has been weaponized.

There are more examples of how politicians acted before the use of fear became widespread. When John McCain was campaigning against Barack Obama, a supporter spoke to McCain directly and said that he was scared of an Obama presidency. McCain responded by telling the supporter that “[Obama] is a … person that you do not have to be scared [of] as president of the United States,” emphasizing that they were campaigning because they “just happen to have disagreements on fundamental issues.” By not only refusing to stoke a voter’s fears, but also actively reassuring the public, McCain demonstrates a political style less reliant on fear and more grounded in mutual respect.

The question that would reasonably follow is: is that change necessarily bad? Politics is changing— so what? Politics changed with the invention of the television set and nobody’s complaining now, so is this just the next step in a natural evolution of political trends? To understand the answer to these questions, we must look at the effect, not just the cause, of this shift in politics.

The Effects of Fear

The first step is to recognize that these tactics can have positive effects.. 

For starters, voter turnout is increasing, with NPR finding that “[m]ore than 155 million people cast ballots in the 2024 presidential election.” While these numbers are exceptionally high, they fall about three million short of the 2020 presidential election. This data may seem to contradict the ideas presented; however, it actually goes to prove them further. Why? The answer lies in the fear and politics surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic.

Throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, fear was widespread in the United States, and as soon as it became a political issue, it showed in American ballots. In 2021, 78% of Americans believed tackling COVID-19 should be one of the government’s top priorities — only two points below the economy, which has long been easily the most important issue for Americans. This support came from the fear Americans had during the COVID-19 pandemic. For many, it was difficult to deal with the idea that something they couldn’t control could kill them or their loved ones. When Americans were asked in March 2020 if they had had any “‘physical reactions, such as sweating, trouble breathing, nausea, or a pounding heart’ when thinking about their experience with the coronavirus outbreak”, almost a fifth (18%) answered that they had. This number had only decreased to about 14% by September 2022, showing how the fear of COVID-19 was still very much present during the 2020 election, leading to many looking for, and thus going out and voting for, what they believed would be the solution.

Regardless of the methods used, voter turnout has increased, improving our democracy and allowing more people to have a voice in what they believe in. But these tactics come with consequences.

The most obvious issue is political polarization. For example, if the Democratic politicians you trust constantly demonize Republicans (e.g., by comparing them to Adolf Hitler), it makes it difficult for you to have non-emotionally charged discussions of policy with Republicans. In polling conducted by Pew Research Center, the majority of Democrats find it “stressful and frustrating” to discuss politics with Republicans. This applies in both directions, with about half of Republicans finding it difficult to engage with Democrats.

But this hasn’t always been the case: political polarization in the United States has been increasing in the past twenty years, and even more so recently. When asked by the Pew Research Center in 1996, 21% of Republicans viewed the Democratic Party “very unfavorably,” while 17% of Democrats viewed Republicans in the same light. Compare that to a similar survey taken in 2016, which found that 58% of Republicans and 54% of Democrats viewed the other party “very unfavorably.”

In just 20 years, political polarization more than doubled in the United States.

There are other metrics we can look at to examine this polarization. For example, this graph from the Pew Research Center shows how the median between Democrats and Republicans has been shifting farther and farther apart from 1994 to 2014:

The same article goes on to find that, “[i]n 1994, 23% of Republicans were more liberal than the median Democrat; while 17% of Democrats were more conservative than the median Republican. Today, those numbers are just 4% and 5%, respectively.” These large shifts in the median beliefs of Americans and the reduction in overlap between Democrats and Republicans (represented in the graph above with purple) show how politically polarized our country has become.

There are more indicators of this polarization.

The Vanderbilt Unity Index factors in “strong presidential disapproval, political and ideological extremism, social trust, political and social unrest , and measurements of congressional polarization” to determine how united the United States is as a whole. The results? Unity is sinking rapidly, demonstrating how polarized the country has become from the increased trend of fear.

As this polarization only grows, it becomes more difficult to pass legislation, have conversations about how policies will affect our country, and understand other perspectives. It’s also dangerous because of how difficult it is to recognize. I wouldn’t be surprised if you’re reading this article and thinking, “well, I don’t want to understand the other side. They’re a bunch of Nazis and racists/commies and radicals.” If that’s you, you are a part of the problem.

But there are more personal effects of this polarization as well. 

According to the New York Times, back in the late 1950’s, when Americans were asked what political party a potential son-in-law should be, 33% of Democrats answered he should be a Democrat, and 25% of Republicans answered he should be a Republican. When the same question was asked in 2016, those numbers changed to 60% of Democrats and 63% of Republicans wanting their daughter’s potential husband to be of the same political party. These numbers are completely understandable. After all, if Democrats are constantly being told Republicans are fascists, why would they want their child to marry one? These numbers demonstrate the political polarization in the United States, and how it’s increased in the past years from just being a minor point of disagreement to a major point of contention between couples and families.

This effect can be found in friendships as well, with a 2017 poll from the Cato Institute finding that “nearly two-thirds (61%) of Clinton voters agree that it’s ‘hard’ to be friends with people who voted for Donald Trump,” while only 34% of Trump voters agree that it’s difficult to make friends with Clinton supporters. This lack of friendship leads to hostility between the political parties, with a similar 2016 study by the Pew Research Center finding that “[t]his is especially the case for Republicans: Those with few or no Democratic friends are twice as likely to rate Democrats very coldly than are Republicans with at least some Democratic friends (62% vs. 30%).” The combination of these sources shows how the difficulty of forming cross-party friendships is one worth overcoming. Without these kinds of friendships, it becomes far more difficult to attack negative stereotypes. A Democrat with only Democrat friends is going to view Republicans with mistrust and bias. This will cause them to be less receptive to working with, befriending, or loving Republicans, creating not only political polarization, but also a new brand of social polarization.

The Purpose of Fear

The question is, why? What’s the motivation behind turning one half of the country against the other? How do politicians benefit from this polarization and fear mongering?

For starters, there’s the aforementioned increase in voter turnout.

Nobody likes to be scared. Someone scared of the dark turns on the lights. Someone scared of heights steps away from tall ledges. Someone scared of flights tries to drive whenever possible. Fear motivates action. In the case of politics, this action means voting for the party the voter in question believes will take away their fear the best. It doesn’t matter if that fear is of immigrant crime, an economy that forces them into poverty, or a fear of a military dictatorship. Someone scared of the incumbent votes for a challenger. When fear is as widely used as it is today, that leads to the far greater voter turnout mentioned earlier.

Additionally, the use of fear benefits politicians by increasing campaign donations. After all, if someone believes that Republicans winning the upcoming election will restrict their freedoms or destroy their country, a $20 donation to the Democrats appears inconsequential. Thus, campaign donations increase. Evidence for this idea appears in an analysis of the 2020 election by Open Secrets, which found that Democrats raised $1.8 billion from small-dollar ($200 or less) donors. This “small donor boost was most evident with Democratic Senate candidates. In 2016, these candidates got 14 percent of their campaign cash from small donors. That figure reached nearly 37 percent in 2020.” This number also grew for Republicans, which increased “their small donor rate from less than 6 percent in 2016 to 22 percent in 2020.”

In addition, there’s evidence that the increase in political polarization led to these increases in small-dollar donors. A 2014 survey by the Pew Research Center

 demonstrates how those driven farthest away from the other political ideology are more likely to donate to campaigns (as well as vote). 

This data shows the incentive politicians have to drive political polarization. It is clear that politicians have followed, and are continuing to follow, that incentive.

The End of Fear

The political climate of the United States has radically changed, and will continue to radically change in the coming years. The most important thing to remember is that neither candidate will destroy us. The United States is a strong nation that has preserved its democracy and freedoms for hundreds of years. No candidate or political party is going to change that in a single decade, and while candidates may make controversial decisions, it’s important to approach political, social, and economic decisions with clarity, rather than being driven by fear.If we do that, one American at a time, we can preserve not just our democracy, but also the bonds of community, family, and friendship that make democracy worth defending.