PANDEMIC DIARY
FEAR AS WORLDVIEW
July 19, 2019
F : False or Forget
E : Evidence or Everything
A : Appearing or And
R : Real or Run
Early in my professional career, I had a mentor who was a brilliant salesperson. I worked under him selling high-end consulting services to businesses. I would ‘shadow’ him on visits to clients following his instructions and observing his techniques. It was not an easy sell being that our engagements could easily ascend in cost to the hundreds of thousands of dollars. Aside from the subliminal techniques in his suitcase, there was one primary lesson. He instructed me to “sell fear'“. He said that “fear is the single greatest motivator, and that the two greatest fears were: the fear of not getting what you want; and, the fear of losing what you have. And, by far the greater of the two was the fear of losing what you have.
In 2018, two political scientists, Marc Hetherington and Jonathan Weiler, wrote a book titled “Prius or Pickup” suggesting that politics today is less abut red vs. blue and more about fixed vs. fluid.
“Of the many factors that make up your worldview, one is more fundamental than any other in determining which side of the divide you gravitate toward: your perception of how dangerous the world is. Fear is perhaps our most primal instinct, after all, so it’s only logical that people’s level of fearfulness informs their outlook on life.”
The fixed worldview “describes people who are warier of social and cultural change and hence more set in their ways, more suspicious of outsiders, and more comfortable with the familiar and predictable.” Whereas, people with a fluid worldview, by contrast, “support changing social and cultural norms, are excited by things that are new and novel, and are open to, and welcoming of, people who look and sound different.”
What’s happened in recent decades, they argue, is that politics in general, and our political parties in particular, have reorganized around these worldviews, adding a new, and arguably irreconcilable difference into our political divisions. That difference is visible in everything from what we think, to where we live, to how we shop, but it’s particularly apparent in how hard it is for us to understand how the other side views the world.
From our inception, the fundamental ideological divide between party’s was the size of government. The Democrats proposed a bigger role; the Republicans advocated a smaller role. Most Americans varied in their judgements and commitments on this question. The party elites could compromise across party lines even as there were rancorous political differences.
A dramatic change took place in the 20th century as the dividing line was no longer about governance (more or less governing). The divide evolved into differences in philosophy about life - a worldview determined by the degree of fear experienced. Is the world a safe place to live and explore, or is it a dangerous snake pit to hunker down against.
If you think the world is dangerous, safety is always the No. 1 concern. When it comes to physical safety, (job security, opportunity, religious beliefs, social norms), letting your guard down against adversaries could be disastrous. If you think the world is safe, however, discriminating against groups that have generally been down the racial, gender, or sexual orientation hierarchy is the real sin.
We often speak to the issue of “identity politics”. However, at the core is a worldview that inclines people to identify with certain views about the nature of the world and our very existence. Worldviews have become mated to partisanship. And, we all have worldviews. It’s when those worldviews identify with a singularly defined identity around which individual lives are structured that produces intense conflict. Opposing worldviews have always been around. What is relatively new is how structured, conformed and mapped are these neatly packaged party identities.
Proclamations from the president about “American carnage”, “America is no longer respected”, “The world is a very dangerous place”, and “America is being taken advantage of” is utilizing the ‘dog whistle’ approach that speaks to a highly discreet population of citizens who are predisposed to fear. They already feel put upon, dismissed and ignored, their values challenged, their voices dimmed. “When Democrats see, hear, and read these things, they just don’t get it. Although they see danger, it is in the form of Republicans who perceive people who look or sound different as threats to national security. Modern-day Democrats see old traditions that discriminate against minorities, women, and LGBT people as the real threats to American life.”
All evidence points to the fact that the world is safer. Yet, reality hardly matters today. The bases of the two parties simply view the world much differently. The authors cite research that makes clear that fear benefits Republicans in a worldview divided system. Opinions creep to the right principally when one party is willing to use fear as a cudgel and are moved to aggressively assert a singular, clearly defined and articulated worldview. It is because Democrats are ‘open’ and available to change, and struggle within the party as to how much change is advantageous that their worldview often fails in its message and cogency.
Unfortunately, the author’s conclusions are not encouraging. Hetherington says, “I’m an optimist and even I can’t generate much optimism now…We appear to be approaching a crucible moment…When you hate your opponent as much as Republicans hate Democrats, it is hard to give an inch on anything… For things to change, something must supplant these primal worldviews as the dividing line between the parties. That impetus must come from the top. Leaders set the grounds of debate. Ordinary people follow their lead…I worry, though, that politics divided by worldview may be the natural state of things. We just didn’t realize that because we grew up in an anomalous time when the divide was about the size of government. Looking back over centuries, politics has almost always been fought between forces who favor the traditional and those who favor modernity. We’ve gone back to the future.”
