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."

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/Commentary/com-11_13_05_KKR.html