During this difficult time in American politics, I have come to embrace a theory about fear and power. I think that the choices people make when in a state of fear will always give power to another. I initially came to this idea when considering the republican party. As I thought about it more, I felt it was a sound idea when applied in many situations.
We live in a very polarized time politically. I do not think it is a particularly unique moment with reference to polarization as it is human to be polarized, just as it is human to err. But the discourse has been filled with fear, in the Republican camp particularly. I hear from conservative friends fears about the affect of Muslim immigrants on American society, the slow recovery of the economy, jobs leaving the country, perceived danger to the 2nd amendment, and a host of other concerns. I have no qualms with these concerns. They are legitimate. However, the strong sense of fear in these discussions often robs them of their potential to be useful and positive conversations. I want to repeat that concerns are not the problem, fear is.
I do not consider myself a pro, but I play a lot of chess. One good rule of thumb in that game is to make moves that force the other player react. If the other player is busy moving pieces in reaction to you, then they will be less likely to achieve their own goals. Basically, this keeps the other player "off balance". A player who is "off balance" must assess the threat the other player poses but also think of a plan that goes beyond the current danger or they will very likely lose the game. While life is not just like chess, it does share a similarity in this respect: In life, we also cannot simply be reactionary. We must assess threats carefully but then move on to form a plan that reaches beyond those threats to complete our goals.
Unfortunately, the conservative voice in this nation (and indeed in the world) is far too reactionary at the moment. An example of this in Europe is the Brexit vote in England. Conservative voices continually echoed fears around the country, including fears about immigrants and the economy. The result was a strong movement to split from the EU. Unfortunately, there was little planning done beyond that point! When the prime minister stepped down, there was not a conservative politician standing ready with a plan. In fact, I would wager that most politicians - conservative and liberal alike - were not expecting the bill to pass. To many conservative politicians, Brexit was likely no more than a vehicle to mobilize voters for their own personal agendas. The end result was not the end of England but it was a very embarrassing moment and has been bad for their economy thus far by most metrics.
But England is not alone. In America, the same conservative voices have been at work. They spread fear in hope that they can capitalize on it, and this tactic largely works because of human nature. The voters hear about the immigrants that are going to destroy all that we hold dear and then vote out of fear to keep them out. They fear that they will lose their rights and vote for the candidate who will protect them. The irony this is that voters lose more than they may realize by acting in this reactionary fashion.
Fear creates a vacuum for power. That is why politicians often attempt to inspire fear in their constituents. The politician uses fear to create the vacuum and then conveniently steps into it. They effectively say, "You have problems that are big and scary but trust me and I will take care of them." If you take a look at most speeches by Donald Trump, that is almost literally what he says!
So what is wrong with a politician using fear to get votes? Nothing in particular. JFK was elected in a campaign based largely on fear of nuclear attacks. But more fear creates a larger vacuum, and that is when things get sad and ironic. Many conservative voters are so "off balance" due to the many frightening reports they are exposed to that they have lost sight of some goals completely. Conservatives believe in a government with limited power that can be held in check by it's citizens. Correct? They desire a president who is not overwhelmingly powerful, who can also be held in check by other branches of government. Correct? But many of these core values of conservatives are ignored in the search for a figure able to protect them from all of the perceived threats. Such voters are bound to fail in small numbers and are fairly dangerous in large numbers.
Consider the statement made by Donald Trump in a televised debate. "If I am elected president, I will instruct my attorney general to look into [Clinton's email] situation because there have never been so many lies, so much deception." Trump is filling a vacuum left by the many stories circulating about Clinton and the many fears people have of their unknown contents. That is a reasonable thing for a candidate to do. But the picture painted by this statement is not a great one. Imagine how powerful a president would be if they could instruct the attorney general to open up investigations on anyone they suspected! That is far too much power for a president to have. What bothers me is that such power would go against everything a typical conservative claims to believe.
A similar consolidation of power occurred under Bush with the patriot act. I have never known conservatives to feel they need to be monitored more by the government. Yet they seemed happy to submit to this when they were frightened of more terrorist attacks after 9/11. Many of the powers that Obama used, to the disapproval of conservatives, as president were granted during the the Bush administration with full support of the same conservatives. Why? Because fear created a vacuum for power and the role of president extended to fill that void.
Consider the following statement made by Trump, "One of the things I am going to do [if I win]. I'm going to open up our libel laws so that when they purposely write negative and horrible and false articles, we can sue them and win lots of money. We're going to open up those libel laws. So when the New York Times writes a hit piece which is a total disgrace or when The Washington Post, which is there for other reasons, writes a hit piece, we can sue them and win money instead of having no chance of winning because they're totally protected." I would like to point out that nasty articles written by papers have been a tradition since this country was founded. There is also a tradition of the government not interfering in such things. That is the first amendment! What conservative would not protect that fundamental right! Yet conservatives are filled with fear that the "liberal media" drowns them out with its opinions and that fear creates a vacuum which is filled by Trump. Now he is cheered as he openly discusses ideas that are antithetical to core conservative beliefs!
I implore conservatives to cool down and look beyond your fears. Think about what your core beliefs are with reference to government. The country needs a conservative voice but that voice is not present. It is currently "off balance" as can be seen in the outlandish statements of its leaders. There are only two options if this trend continues: The conservative republican party will either die, losing the political game of chess. Or the conservative republican party will organize to elect more and more autocratic rulers, giving away the very rights that it once valued. I hope that conservatives wake up before either of these things happen.
