Fear and the U.S. Election
Lamb Chopped
Shipmate
in Purgatory
It seems to me that the primary emotion driving discussion around the election is fear. Fear by Trump supporters of various groups of people they think will change America forever. Fear by the other side of people who seem to be blind to the harm done by their policies to vulnerable people, and who seem to want to win at any cost. Fear by everybody that the country is going to hell in a handbasket, and whatever next year looks like, it's going to be scary and dangerous.
Which leads me to ask: What can ordinary people (like us) do to calm down and defuse the fear all around us, whether that's at work, church, neighborhood, or on the Ship (esp. for non-American Shipmates)? I'm thinking that might lead to more reasonable discussion and behavior wherever we are.
Which leads me to ask: What can ordinary people (like us) do to calm down and defuse the fear all around us, whether that's at work, church, neighborhood, or on the Ship (esp. for non-American Shipmates)? I'm thinking that might lead to more reasonable discussion and behavior wherever we are.
Comments
Kind of a dilemma for me, because, while right now I doubt that the most dystopian fears about a second Trump term will be realized, I also think the Democrats need to be running the most intense fear-mongering campaign since Daisy Girl in 1964.
Even if Project 2025 is unlikely to come to full or even substantial fruition, it's bad enough that any party would propose something like it, and the Democrats need to be shouting its contents into a bullhorn, if that'll help keep the writers away from the halls of power. If such a campaign makes it impossible to assuage the panic of people who might be inclined to go overboard in their doomsday prophesying, so be it.
I think @Lamb Chopped raises an important question and one which is clearly of the utmost importance in a highly polarised and volatile USA as well as applicable in broad terms elsewhere.
It'd be glib to say that the answer is to show love, compassion and concern to everyone, irrespective of their political or ideological persuasion, but that's the ideal.
Not stoking things up online would be a good place to start. As well as the usual day to day things like showing courtesy and respect to those around us.
Easier said than done when feelings are running high and fear is such a factor.
I'm intrigued by the reference to non-US Shipmates in this context. What's envisaged here? That non-US Shipmates desist from commenting on US politics? Or if they do, that they should do so in a different way to how they do it currently?
Or that they should try to cheer up and jolly along their US counterparts?
I'm not sure what non-US Shipmates can do to lessen the fear or lighten the load, as it were, other than to listen and not comment other than to show empathy. Easier said than done.
Is there anything that could be done or said by non-US Shipmates that is likely to alleviate fears or stoke up concerns and foreboding that isn't there already?
If we said, 'Don't worry USA. It'll all be fine,' then that would be platitudinous.
If we all sounded like Private Fraser out of the classic 1970s BBC sit-com, 'Dad's Army' - "We're doomed! Doomed!' - we'd be Job's Comforters.
Something needs to be done to dampen down fear and tension as the US Presidential elections loom. Other than a million and one Sermon on The Mount style actions by all involved, I'm not sure what the answer is.
That is far more important than any amount of tone policing.
ETA: I'm not accusing @Lamb Chopped of tone policing, since other posts have told me where she is coming from, but I do think a lot of comments, especially from those outside the USA, tend in this direction. If the object one is commenting on is fearful, then a reaction which provokes fear is appropriate.
I think people need to do what works for them. People should do the self-care that allows them to keep going, whether that's taking long walks, doing yoga, or doing what they can to make sure their meds won't run out at inopportune times, or whatever. People who are potentially in real danger could start making a plan to deal with it - assuming of course that they are able to do this - locate any available help, identify a personal network of support, think about whether they can move to a different part of the country or even out of the country if need be.
As someone who will not be in real danger if the worst happens unless I choose to be, my plan between now and the election is to need to limit my consumption of political news, not drink too much, exercise regularly, make targeted political donations, write postcards for Democratic get out the vote campaigns, and make sure I'm on mailing lists for organizations that support undocumented immigrants so that if they put out urgent calls for help, I hear them.
It is not irrational to be afraid of the potential for a MAGA US government. I will not be showing love, compassion or concern to fascists.
American friends and Americans I've met when travelling in Europe recently, have all told me that it is becoming increasingly impossible to have a reasonable and rational conversation about any political issue in the US these days - be it over immigration, gun-control, Epiphanies issues or almost anything and everything else.
There has to be some way to break that vicious circle.
And yes, I am being idealistic.
But belligerent talk can lead to escalations in tension.
I may be very naive, but I find it hard to envisage that any US government would go in for mass internment of registered migrants - although Trump's Republican cult - I hardly think we can call it a Party any more - are certainly more than capable of doing that to unregistered migrants.
Mind you, both the US and UK governments shamefully interned plenty of people during during WW2.
As for the current situation...
It may be too late, of course. A Rubicon may already have been crossed. I hope not.
Meanwhile, the activities you describe such as political activism, lobbying, encouraging people to vote etc etc are all very laudable and legitimate of course and FWIW I'd be rooting for you in that. What I was advocating isn't necessarily incompatible with the measures you intend to use.
I'm not sure what other non-US Shipmates can do other than express solidarity and support for those US posters who are rightly concerned about their country's future.
Don't forget the old adage. When America sneezes the whole world catches cold.
I s'pose what I'm saying is that it is possible to join or support initiatives to resist a Republican Party gone rogue and right-wing to a dangerous extent without punching your Republican voting neighbour in the face, poisoning their dog or setting their picket-fence on fire.
Difficult, I know ...
But doesn't it indicate how polarised things have become when I can't express some mildly idealistic views without implicitly being accused of being soft on fascism?
One of American conservative's big grievances for a while was Ted Kennedy's speech denouncing Supreme Court nominee Robert Bork. It think the bit they objected to most was:
Was this fearmongering? Perhaps. Did it accurately reflect the very well documented judicial views of Robert Bork? Absolutely!
Sometimes objections to "fearmongering" amount to objecting to accurately and without euphemism describing odious political positions. Sometimes people are right to be afraid.
If you read what I wrote as accusing you of being soft on fascism, then how can I avoid the conclusion that you're saying I'd poison dogs belonging to Trump voters?
If you want the rhetoric to be reasonable, check yourself first.
But fair do's. I'll mind my p's and q's.
But I can follow your line of thought given my previous comment about accusations of being soft on fascism.
I withdraw that accusation.
US parties do not have manifestos that they seriously intend on enacting or that they bother to have costed. They have party platforms that are only made at national conventions where presidential candidates are nominated, and these document are basically wish lists prepared by a committee of representatives of different activist groups and special interests. Party platforms do not reflect the policy proposals of the presidential candidate or any other candidate for office. The people drafting them know that they do not speak for the official presidential campaigns and are trying to play a long game of slowly influencing the direction of party policy. Platforms historically have been a way of placating the ideological factions of the party as a presidential candidate is moving from campaigning to the party base in party primaries towards the center in order to win votes in the general election. Party platforms are not produced for midterm elections, although much of Congress is elected at these times.
Trump has changed some of this for the RNC. He hadn’t yet taken over the party machinery yet when he clinched the nomination in 2016 so the platform drafted then was more of a traditional laundry list of priorities of different groups within the party. By 2020, Trump’s control of the RNC was so strong that the convention was mostly about touting his accomplishments and a platform was largely seen as an afterthought, so they just cut and pasted the 2016 platform so as to not have any potential complications that might arise from disagreements between activists over what should be in the platform. In 2024, Trump’s cult of personality in the party is even stronger and it makes sense to draft a platform because it largely says what Trump’s campaign wants it to say. That said, the current platform is a short, vague document that mostly just shouts that Trump is going to make everything great. A big sign of Trump’s influence on the platform this year is that it talks very little about abortion and says it should largely be left up to the states.
The big worry is Trump wins, Ukraine loses, Putin attacks another country and we continue the slow slide into WW3 - or at least a major European war. (With the assumption being Trump finds an excuse to ditch NATO.)
I'm hearing some people saying that fear is necessary, and in fact that increasing it in other people is necessary, or we don't have a future. I disagree. In my experience, frightened people make bad choices, and one of those bad choices is to stay home instead of voting. That's the last thing I want.
The mood I sensed in 2020 at the polls was not fear; it was anger. These were people who were so angry about what Trump had done that they were literally risking their lives to vote--remember, this was during the height of the pandemic, and a lot of states had set up barriers to voting by mail, so we had to go down and breathe each other's air while we waited. We did it anyway.
I have no objections to spreading truthful information, or urging people to vote. But I think we need to stop the fear-mongering, and by that I mean communication which intentionally tries to stir up fear, as opposed to communication that simply lays out the facts.
Someone will say to me here, "But the facts cause fear, because we have good reason to be frightened by them." That's fine. That's not a problem. Let the facts evoke whatever reaction they evoke.
But truthfully, I think it's a sin against our neighbors to go beyond that by using the techniques of rhetoric to scare the crap out of them for any purpose. I'm having to advise people in real life who are close to breaking down over what they're hearing. They aren't moved to vote; they're moved to hide under the bed.
If we must use the tools of rhetoric to shape people's response, the way to go is cheerful anger. An attitude that says, "We got rid of this man in 2020 and we'll do it again." Something that empowers people rather than making them feel helpless. And, incidentally, gives them a sense of hope--which is a kindness to my neighbor rather than a sin against him/her.
I mean there is very little exaggeration here, the fear is taking Trump at his word, believing that the things that his supporters say they want is actually what they want.
Trump in 2022 on the Heritage Foundation
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/project-2025-trump-heritage-foundation-what-know-rcna161338
Of course Trump says whatever is convenient to Trump in any given moment.
For me at least, accuracy—in the sense of avoiding misinformation—is also important. At the least, accuracy matters. At worst, inaccuracy invites a response of “you’re exaggerating,” which in turn can lead to dismissing anything the one passing along inaccurate info says.
To that end: As @stonespring has said, no “party” has “proposed” Project 2025, and Trump has actively distanced himself from it. (Yes, caveats about Trump’s lack of trustworthiness are applicable.)
And @Gamma Gamaliel, perhaps this is a thread where tongue-in-check comments don’t convey well.
The Federalist Society is also not an official organ of the Republican party or the Trump campaign, and yet they were behind all of Trump's judicial appointments. Given that the majority of people involved in the actual drafting of Project 2025 are veteran's of Trump's administration* (Russell Vought, Stephen Miller, Mark Meadows, etc.) and are likely to have prominent roles in a future Trump regime, I think it's reasonable to expect these ideas to be pushed very strongly by a restored Trump White House.
At a certain point resistance to "fear-mongering" transitions into gaslighting that everything is going to be just fine. I'm thinking of this New York Times article from 1922.
Good thing no one was alarmist about that fellow, or "fear-mongered" that his anti-Semitism might cause problems if he ever assumed power.
A more recent example was the people accusing Hillary Clinton of "fear-mongering" over her claims during the 2016 campaign that Trump's Supreme Court appointees would wreck a bunch of progressive accomplishments.
This works from a utilitarian point of view as well. Fear can be paralyzing. Cheerful anger and some righteous indignation simply feel better to me than fear and are far more likely to help me do what needs to be done.
Say what you believe. Even though speech can be many bad things, I value truth right up there with love - and that means I have to learn to stomach truths which are unpalatabe.
Different truths are unpalatable to different people.
Does this mean I’m a “free-speech absolutist”? Certainly I’m closer to it than the opposite.
I am a firm believer that the harm people choose for themselves, does much more damage than the harm that other people do.
I've had arguments with people on Facebook about things like this--the latest was a meme that claimed that the Heritage Foundation changed the name of Project 2025 to the 47 Project because people were getting wise--this is not true, they're two separate horrible things predicated on a Trump victory--and people were trying to say that they were practically the same, and I pointed out that this is not what the meme was claiming at all. And so many other things on my own (liberal) "side." Of course I fruitlessly argue with the other side too...
Fear is a natural reaction to possible serious danger, but panicking isn't helpful.
And we as Christians should absolutely pray. Take deep breaths. Practice self-care. Try to unplug from the news from time to time (this is a problem I have, especially on social media, doom scrolling, etc.).
I do believe that ultimately, whatever happens, we will exit this world and its pains, Jesus will return, there will be a new Heaven and a new Earth and a Resurrection--but this also was true during the Black Death, the Inquisition, the Holocaust, and so on, and people had to do what they could while on Earth during those terrible things. So too if (God forbid) Trump wins again, and does even a smidgen of the things he seems keen on. So I believe our basic present task is to vote and encourage others to as well, so as to hopefully avoid that fate.
Respect,CM
I need to read/see The After Party, which is about something similar, and whatever one’s political positions, about thinking about politics in a healthier Christian way (I.e. how we conduct politics—no “ends justify the means,” demonizing, dehumanizing, etc.—matters as much or more than the politics themselves).
Lamb Chopped covered this well but any informed European looking at the situation will be concerned.
I come at this from two perspectives. Firstly I am fascinated by the US and have followed US politics since the '80s. The West Wing is the best show ever. I listen to a US podcast most days. So, whilst I don't get a vote, I am plugged into what's going on.
But, the perspective from this side of The Pond is probably more relevant here. What does a Trump Second Term mean to the UK? The truth is, with one MASSIVE exception, not much.
Let's just deal with the Special Relationship first. In one sense it is totally true that this is deliberate flattery on the part of the US towards a much smaller and less geopolitically significant ally and the UK needs to wake up to this. Some Presidents/Prime Ministers are close but that's just personalities.
However, it is real in other ways. The US and UK militaries are on some levels incredibly closely integrated. This is especially true in the Intelligence Communities. It's closer than any other two nations in the world and is not going to change significantly in 4 years, regardless of Trump. So, that will stay the same in the short to medium term.
In terms of trade, the US has a very favourable set up with respect to the UK. In a post Brexit world, the UK could do with improving this but regardless of who's in the White House, no US administration will give the UK favourable terms. What is fixable is that the UK under-taxes US owned UK business. The UK can fix this on its own. It's a matter of UK legislation. The US might make a small protest but probably not.
Especially since the change of government in the UK, the US president does not really matter to us for now.
However, there is one small thing.
Ukraine. And all that it means geopolitically.
Let's be clear, Putin has ambitions towards all of Eastern Europe and beyond. Ukraine has been a total strategic failure as he has not conquered the country and the other nations are less scared of The Red Army.
Let's just unpack that last part. I was chatting to a Romanian friend a few weeks back, they fear Russia's ambitions but not their capabilities. If you talk to Latvians, Ukraine has changed nothing because they've been expecting the Russians since the '90s. They always expected Russian imperial ambitions to involve them. The inability of the Russian forces to defeat Ukraine has given much encouragement to other nations. They don't fear losing to Russia, they fear a long, long conflict.
If Putin conquers Ukraine, then a much wider war in Eastern Europe becomes very likely. Although it will probably take 3-5 years for Russia to actually be ready.
There is no way that a wider European conflicts does not involve the US. Even if Trump manages to destroy NATO's credibility and encourage Russian ambitions, the US would get involved eventually. So it's in the US's own interests to stop Russia now.
There is no doubt that a Trump win threatens Ukraine's support without which its continuation of the war effort is in serious doubt.*
So my great fear from Trump winning is this
1. Destruction of the US's international credibility
2. Undermining NATO
3. Making a European conflict likely that the UK will be involved in from the beginning**
Being a Superpower - as the UK was a hundred and fifty years ago - means there are consequences far beyond your own borders.
AFZ
*I am pleased to see in the last month or so that both Ukraine and European leaders are planning for this contingency but the US support is really important right now.
**I ran into a surgeon who's senior in the UK military medical planning. It is not a secret that they are working on how to ramp up capacity in the event of a near-peer conflict. I am sure the rest of the MOD is working on the same assumptions.
I mean.
Good point. Well made.
Additionally, plenty of us have worked in the US and/or have friends and family who live there who would be affected the choice of president.
Whether it's fear or apprehension bourne of experience and with multiple crises looming, it's hard not to end up seeing the issue through a slightly apocalyptic lens, at least some of the time.
Not exactly a comforting thought, I guess...it's possibly a toss-up as to which apocalypse takes us all out first...
But, Thy Kingdom Come.
It's arguable that Americans have experienced fascism. The Jim Crow south was at least fascist-adjacent. In The Anatomy of Fascism Robert O. Paxton makes the fairly convincing argument that the Ku Klux Klan was actually the world's first truly fascist organization. If we take this as true the problem isn't so much that Americans have never experienced fascism but that a lot of white Americans are actually somewhat nostalgic for fascism. For them restoring fascism means Making America Great Again.
Yes, good points. One of the criteria for fascism has been a revolutionary change of government. But that does leave out fascist movements, e.g., Golden Dawn in Greece. But then Trump wanted a retrospective change of government!
If the advertised policies of one of the candidates do large-scale and significant harm to you, and to people like you, then I don't think dismissing your real concerns as "fear" and "feelings" is even slightly appropriate.
We've had any number of glib comments over the years about how if you vote for the "Leopards Eating People's Faces" party, then you shouldn't be surprised when your face gets eaten. And when it's completely obvious to you that one candidate is a face-eating leopard, and you are a person with a face, it's hard not to take your neighbors voting for your face to be eaten a bit personally.
This sounds like complete nonsense. It's the sort of glib soundbite that is sometimes true in some cases, but is false in general.
I think there's a rather significant difference between a political contest where all the plausible candidates agree that the general aim of government is to improve the common wellbeing of the people, but differ over what policies they think better does that, and a political contest where one of the plausible candidates thinks that some of the people shouldn't exist, or shouldn't count as "people".
One could argue that the overthrow of Reconstruction in the post-Civil War South was a form revolutionary change of government. Sometimes this took the dramatic form of an actual coup d'état, sometimes a campaign of terrorism, targeted assassinations, and intimidation was used.