November 13, 2005
The
Politics of Fear and Loathing
By Kathleen
Kelley Reardon
Emotional
expression in politics is rarely an inadvertent slip from reason.
Emotions are used often to exert power over people, despite our
propensity to consider reason the superior form of expression.
We are all, first and foremost, emotional beings. At this point
in time, it can be argued that we are undergoing a paradigm shift
in our beliefs about how people in politics, central and peripheral,
should comport themselves. We've become admirably comfortable
with leaked emotions of shock and sadness, but also with strategic
displays of negative emotions used to commandeer supporters away
from purported opposition. Fear and loathing are two types of
emotion-based persuasion strategies used frequently on the current
political scene.
Decades of persuasion research reveal that fear is a risky political
strategy for one specific reason -- people tend to reject highly
fearful messages unless they are provided with an immediately
available, promising means of substantially reducing or eradicating
the threat. If, for example, Karl Rove and his team had provoked
fear among the religious right regarding liberal threats to cherished
institutions too long before the election, given the closeness
of the race, the results might have been quite different. Timing
is critical as is the credibility of the fear messenger - hence
the value of using church leaders to instigate that emotion and
to promise in the same sermon delivery from anxiety in the voting
booth. No matter your position on the veracity of pre-Iraq persuasion,
eliciting fear of invasion from a maniacal murderer in the Middle
East with weapons of mass destruction was also strategic. It worked,
in large part, because post 9/11 Americans were already frightened
and because a solution - war - could be implemented immediately.
Intense fear invokes urgency. If what seems a viable solution
is in reach, most people will take it. And so, as a country, we
did.
Now, let's look at bird flu - the next likely candidate for political
fear appeals. The rhetoric is getting heated. We're told that
somewhere between 5 and 150 million of us may die. But there are
three ingredients here that weren't present right before the election
and the war: (1) the feared event is not imminent, (2) it is not
easily defined and thus not widely taken seriously, and (3) there's
no quick fix. High fear appeals usually fail when confusion reigns
without a readily available resolution. Even scientists are at
a loss to adequately describe the when and how of a version of
bird flu that could pass from human to human. Terrorizing the
public on this subject would likely lead to diffuse anxiety and
unmitigated anger at the message and the people who convey it
- what's known in persuasion parlance as a boomerang effect.
The same caution is relevant to any contrived escalation of the
ever-present anxiety about another attack on U.S. soil? Here again,
the enemy is not easily identified and is less predictable than
an earthquake. Also, there is no ready solution. Even if the terror
alert is elevated to red, the best we can do is stay home. Add
to this the credibility-reducing contradiction that each day illegal
aliens cross our borders in record numbers without being checked
for so much as hangnails let alone terrorist backgrounds. If the
enemy is really among us and all that dangerous, why, people rightly
reason, are we letting so many unknown people in?
Fear appeals being a risky tactical weapon for wresting power
from political opposition, where can politicians turn strategically?
Reason is a candidate, but one decidedly unpopular at the moment.
Eloquence is another means of persuasion -- using metaphors, images
and vivid words -- again decidedly absent. Led by people of both
parties unable or unwilling to utilize either, we've come to rely
on another tactical use of passion -- hatred. The polarization
between liberals and conservatives is so intense, the loathing
so deep, that merely bringing up a political affiliation in conversation
can result in the loss of friends, a divided family, or even the
loss of a job. Ironically, in an era when so much has been written
about emotional intelligence, political tactics and discussions
are fraught with emotional ignorance. Media hate-mongers on assignment
fill our viewing and reading hours with vile, vapid vituperation
and publish books enhancing their niche. They give us a chance
to cheer or jeer, but like fear-mongers, hate-mongers whip everyone
into frenzy and provide no viable solutions. Unabated, the anxiety
hovers like a dark cloud, serving only to feed the next vicious
attack.
Don't get me wrong; I'm not advocating a new politics of sweetness
and light. My study of persuasion and politics has gone on far
too long to go there. Fear and loathing as political tactics predate
Aristotle and aren't about to disappear in our time. Criticism
and debate, when not laced with contrived, negative emotionality,
should be a significant part of democracy. Blog away. But from
our leaders, another level of dialogue should be expected. It's
shameful when young men and women put their lives at stake for
this country while a spitting contest of emotional prevarication
occurs back home over nearly every critical topic. I know all
too well the kind of angst these anti-bombastic rhetoric thoughts
generate from the extremists on both political sides who take
delight in loathing. But among readers will be those with good
ideas who recognize the detrimental long-term effects of extreme
emotional negativity on any society. I'd sure like to hear from
a few of them.
Dr. Reardon
is a Phi Beta Kappa professor of Management and Organization at
the University of Southern California Marshall School, a leading
expert on persuasion, politics and negotiation, and author of
It's All Politics: When Hard Work and Talent Aren't Enough, The
Skilled Negotiator, The Secret Handshake, and Persuasion in Practice
- described by Public Opinion Quarterly as "a landmark contribution
to the field." Her website is Reardon
on Politics.
