The Politics of Fear, Part Deux
Sometimes there *is* a monster under your bed.
On Monday, I reposted a piece about resisting the politics of fear—but we need to think about fear and politics in two distinct ways.
The first is what I emphasized in the original post: the importance of resisting fear-based messaging that preys on our negativity bias, shaping everything from politics to parenting.
But the second, more relevant than ever, is acknowledging that sometimes fear is reasonable. Fear can be a rational response to real threats. And sometimes listening to our fears is crucial for heading off disaster.
The challenge, then, is distinguishing when fear is a valid emotion—one that spurs necessary action—and when it paralyzes us.
While fear can be a catalyst or an obstacle, we also need to pay close attention to what it’s catalyzing.
When it motivates, we need to ask: What is it driving us toward? Harmful, counterproductive behaviors? Or meaningful engagement with real dangers, problem-solving and solution-finding?
Motivating the Resistance
While I try to maintain optimism on this blog, right now, as a political scientist, I see plenty to fear.
Trump’s targeting of civil society institutions like universities, law firms and courts, parks and museums, public education, and media of all kinds is the first step in the authoritarian playbook. This isn’t about DEI or government waste anymore (if it ever was). It’s now about silencing dissent, eroding people’s understanding of their rights and undermining the very institutions that protect those rights in practice.
The Trump administration’s crackdown on immigrants—initially targeting those with criminal records—has expanded to legal residents, visa holders, and even permanent residents. Trump very clearly expressed interest in extending extra-judicial disappearances to U.S. citizens.
Universities, including mine, have students being targeted. Some have already lost their visas. Recent cases show lawful residents removed for minor infractions or simply for exercising free speech.
Grant funding for scientific and medical innovation is being gutted as a way to silence academics, as is federal support for local and regional institutions like museums that provide the institutional memory of our nation.
None of these institutions has ever been perfect. I’ve been critical of modern universities, medical institutions, and others on this list.
But the depth and scale of these attacks, the complete rejection or open flouting of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, the open violations of court orders, and the attempts to terrify law firms, the media, and academics into submission is unlike anything I’ve seen before or thought I would see in my lifetime.
If you aren’t afraid right now, you should be.
Attacks on universities, violations of press freedom, due process, and habeas corpus—these aren’t abstract threats. They’re clear and tangible erosions of rights.
Fear isn’t an overreaction here; it’s warranted.
But the critical question is: What do we do with that fear?
From Fear to Action
If fear is legitimate (and the evidence suggests it is), how do we channel it productively? Which of the following you choose will depend on your personality, your politics, and the particular concerns that resonate with you most right now. And you don’t have to do all of them (obviously), though everyone would benefit from #5 no matter who you are. But there are clear and actionable steps we can take as Americans that have the potential to halt the damage before it’s too late.
1. Protests: Visibility Matters
I’m generally skeptical of (most) protests as ineffective or performative. But I’m debating participating in the the April 19th protests for a couple reasons. Scattered across the U.S., they signal to both the government and international allies that many (if not most) Americans oppose the administration’s tactics, if not the policies themselves. On a more symbolic note, they provide some modicum amount of hope to those personally affected, offering visible solidarity with those who are at risk. Broad participation across the country could underscore the depth of dissent and provide a visible reminder to people like the families of Kilmar Garcia, Alfredo Orellana, and Erlin Richards that they haven’t been forgotten.
2. Pressure Legislators—Especially in Red Districts
Contacting representatives is crucial, particularly in GOP-held districts. Form letters won’t cut it; personal stories will. It’s particularly important to show the harms being done to middle America and to make the harm visible and local. Share narratives of students losing visas, families afraid to travel, or local businesses hurt by immigration crackdowns. Make the human and economic costs undeniable. Most universities aren’t Columbia or Harvard - they’re struggling local or regional institutions that provide critical workforce development and serve as the engines of their local and regional economies. Spotlight how Trump’s gutting of federal grants is affecting your local university and the affects it will have on the local economy, local businesses, and regional cultural institutions. These are the appeals that will resonate with GOP reps, not strident partisan attacks they can write off as liberal hysteria.
3. Support Community Institutions
Libraries, museums, local media outlets, and other local organizations are lifelines. They’re what we political theorists call “intermediate institutions”, creating a buffer between state power and individuals. Support them financially if you can—they’re on the frontlines as federal funding evaporates. Local and regional museums, and local media will suffer the most from the gutting of the National Endowment of Humanities and other federal agencies, so focus your support there. If you’re up for it, try to host non-partisan conversations and storytelling focused on curiosity and human impacts. Most Americans didn’t vote for draconian measures against long-term legal residents, a destructive trade war, or alliances with authoritarian regimes. Highlight that disconnect.
4. Reject Echo Chambers
Academics love preaching to the choir—holding panels where we lament how awful things are. That’s not resistance; it’s capitulation to fear. Academics need to put our scholar hats on; we need to research and document both the policy impacts and the human costs of this administration. We need to use our voices locally and regionally where they have the most impact. And we need to stop confusing self-righteous gatherings with action. You can take part in the National Week of Conversation next week and look for a ton of events to support breaking out of echo chambers and making connections.
5. Take a Break from Media
While it’s important to stay informed on a big-picture level, part of this administration’s strategy (if it can be said to have one) is to capitalize on unpredictability and constant shifting priorities to keep Americans distracted and fragmented. If you need to, check the news once a day and then focus on real-life action, whether that’s spending time with your kids or engaging in any of the above. This is a good time to invest in local media sources and do a digital detox to remove sites that focus on fear-mongering instead of solution-finding.
Radically Moderate Fear
Fear is natural right now. But more than ever we need it to drive proactive, not divisive, responses.
Does our fear fuel contempt for those who voted differently? Or does it inspire solidarity, advocacy, and support for vulnerable communities?
Liberal democracy is fragile. The task isn’t just to feel afraid—it’s to act in ways that fortify the systems and people under attack.
Fear can be a compass, but we need to choose how we use it.
Resources and Further Reading
Replace doomscrolling with content from journalists and reporters from the Solutions Journalism network for proactive and solutions-oriented media and journalists to follow
Reach out to the Problem Solvers Caucus to help them gain insight into concerns from across the U.S., not just those in their own district. Find your own local legislators here and focus on those in red areas, where constituent concerns about GOP policies will have most impact.
Reddit has information on times and locations for local protests. I found mine here, but you can just Google “Reddit April 19 protest [your city]” and you’ll likely get lots of hits.
To find locations for non-partisan conversations check out Braver Angels, Urban Rural Action or check out a much longer list of resources on my website at laurenkhall.com.
What About You?
How are you moving beyond fear-based doomscrolling in proactive and meaningful way? How are you turning fear into meaningful action? What’s missing from my list? What should I add as resources for future readers? What are the levers you think will be most impactful? Leave me a comment! And, as always, subscribe and share if you like what you read. Now, more than ever, we need to spread messaging around meaningful moderate and centrist work the rejects extremes on both sides.
Nicely done, Lauren.
I'll add a couple things that support your argument from fields I've been involved with.
As a Communication Studies professor, I engage the tension between logic and emotions quite a bit. The origins of our field goes back to debates between Plato and Aristotle on the value / danger of rhetoric. Plato believed we need to be rational, and that emotions are bad. The best people -- the philosopher-kings -- learned how to control emotion and let logic dominate (he used the metaphor of the charioteer with two horses, one spirited/emotion focuses, and the other logical, the best charioteers controlled the former). Aristotle, Plato's student, disagreed, and I'm with Aristotle. He saw logic and emotion more like a ying and a yang, rather than an either or. Just like you argue at the beginning of your post, sometimes we should be angry, or scared, or feel guilt. Acting on emotions can be reasonable. Yes, emotions can be take advantage of, and at some point they become toxic to decision-making, but the opposite also exists (trying to make decisions with no emotion whatsoever is problematic, as modern brain science has taught us. So the question becomes -- surprise suprise -- moderation. And making tough distinctions between more reasonable uses of emotion and the abuse of them.
Fast forward to more modern social science perspectives on negative emotions, and particularly on fear (likely the most researched emotion in the persuasion literature). You again get it quite right. One of my undergraduate professors -- a key influence on convencing me to go to grad school and ultimately become a professor -- did alot of research on fear appeal. Her name is Kim Witte. She talks about how negative emotions like fear give us a negative feeling, and we are motivated to act to get rid of the feeling. Conflict profiteers give us an exaggerated sense of fear and direct people in problematic ways (like scapegoating immigrants). Other fear appeals -- incluiding some legit ones like practicing safe sex -- may trigger maladaptive strategies like avoidance. Kim talked about the difference between "fear control" and "danger control." Fear control are behaviors to address the fear, danger control are behaviors to address the actual danger. So your essay is essentially making that distinction. Dangers can be real, and fear can be justifed, manufactured, and/or exaggerated.
One last point that seems relevant. A key aspect of people being more likely to go into danger control rather than fear control is having a sense of efficacy. They have to believe their efforts will work. Efficacy can be split into self-efficacy (can I do this?) and solution efficacy (will it make a difference). Your post does this well, by providing tangible, doable steps to take. (In my grad school days, I remember the most powerful example was how hard it was to convince people to get tested for AIDS before there were any good treatments for it. With no sense of efficacy, people were highly motivated to avoid the messages not engage them).
And to link my two thoughts. Aristotle basically captured the need for efficacy when he talked about emotional appeals 2,000 years ago. In the early days of persuasion research, the assumption was the that more fear, the more people will change their behavior (think drunk driving, or safe sex, or not dismantling safety features on farm equipment). But it was clear some fear appeals backfired, because too much fear without efficacy sent people into fear control rather than danger control. Eventually the social scientists figured out what Aristotle knew way back then...
I appreciate your capturing the complexity of fear in today’s shock and awe political and cultural environment. Your proactive solutions including 1) supporting “intermediate institutions” that buffer the state and individuals (libraries, museums, community orgs), and 2) sharing personal stories with legislators, are crucial to preventing further divisive policies. Suppressing fear is not an option, but connecting with other advocates and activists in solidarity to make change is required to maintain our freedom as Americans.