Freedom from Fear: The Ethics of Using Fear in Politics

This year’s Paul O’Dwyer endowed lecture explored the ethics of political leaders using fear to motivate people to act.

April 11, 2019

Fear in Politics

From left to right: Gus Martinez, Scott McHugh, Matt Dallek, Angela Struebing and Ben Fallon participated in the 2019 Paul O’Dwyer endowed lecture on political ethics exploring the use of fear in politics. (Danny Parra/GSPM)

By Tatyana Hopkins

News media and political messaging have become more about “getting out there in microseconds and being first” than educating the public about how the world’s tens of thousands of threats may or may not apply to them, said Scott McHugh, director of crisis management and security for LyondellBasell Chemical. 

He said rather than private and public sector government actors seeking to give context for the many threats readers come across on social media, they perpetuate the trend of news that “cr[ies] wolf” with eye-grabbing headlines, that seem to be breaking a new unknown threat, but lacks context for that “threat’s” actual impact.

Mr. McHugh, M.P.S. ’12, spoke on a panel Wednesday with experts from across corporate, military and political sectors to discuss how the nation has historically used fear in politics and the ways society is seeing fear intersect with various communications and advocacy fields. The panel was part of the Graduate School of Political Management’s annual Paul O’Dwyer lecture series on political civility and ethics, established by Brian O’Dwyer, B.A. ’66, LL.M. ’76, in 1999 in memory of his father, an attorney and member of the New York City Council.

This year’s lecture drew inspiration from the GW Museum and The Textile Museum’s Norman Rockwell’s Four Freedoms exhibit, with the panel being named after and considering the ideal depicted in Mr. Rockwell’s painting, “Freedom from Fear.” The 1943 painting shows children resting safely in their beds as their parents look on and tuck them in while the father holds a newspaper describing the horrors of ongoing conflict, referencing the German bombing campaign against Britain, the Blitz.

Mr. McHugh said the present and ongoing ethical challenge in politics today is how to get people’s attention amid a constant storm of sensational headlines on social media. 

For example, he said news reporting on China increasing the size of its military and cyber capabilities creates interesting headlines but also the illusion of a threat where there may be none.

“Don’t tell me it’s raining without telling me how not to get wet,” Mr. McHugh said.  “If you’re saying that the sky is falling every single day when it actually is, no one is going to pay attention, and I think that’s where we are today.”

The panel also included Ben Fallon, M.A. ’98, assistant director of the U.S. Office of National Intelligence for Legislative Affairs; Gus Martinez, GSPM adjunct professor and a senior legislative consultant; and Angela Struebing, M.A. ’01, GSPM adjunct professor and president of CDR Fundraising Group. Matt Dallek, GSPM professor and author, moderated the panel.

Mr. Martinez said even in a world that seems to be bombarded with salacious news media, policymakers have an obligation to inform the public about important and potentially dangerous matters even if it causes fear.

“It’s one thing for policymakers to go out and say something that’s untrue, but when they are faced with the truth, and they don’t say something, that guilt of omission of not informing the public is an ethical violation,” he said.

In her introductory remarks, GSPM Director Lara Brown said fear has long been used as a tactic in political communications and even by governments.

“There are times where it is legitimate and times where maybe it’s not so legitimate,” Dr. Brown said.

Mr. Fallon said the intelligence community aims to give policymakers information they need to make decisions in a “straightforward, objective way,” but said their input is just a fragment of what goes into developing policy.

“There is no Republican intelligence; there is no democratic intelligence,” he said. “But intelligence is just a piece of policy development. There are many other pieces that go into policy development including messaging and fear.”

Ms. Struebing said political and non-profit fundraising takes a more subjective approach to messaging, which may employ various fear tactics. She said in fundraising even important issues like education may be overlooked if they do not raise money.

“From a fundraising perspective, I’m always going to use the messages that raise the most money,” she said. “My whole singular call to action is to raise dollars, and it’s not the organization or candidates’ responsibility to tell people what’s important.”

Looking ahead to the 2020 election, Dr. Dallek said he does not expect much to change. He said each base will be “intensely” motivated by a set of fears about the other side of the aisle or about issues they care about.

“This is symptomatic of our politics typically, though arguably it has been ratcheted up higher and higher,” he said. “For better, or maybe worse, there is going to be a lot of fear, and I don’t see how we escape it in the next two years, on both sides.”