Fear and Political Action

[nancylebov]

I recently heard some talk based on the idea that the reaction to the Bush administration most worth encouraging is fear.

I have two problems with this. One is merely factual--the administration is much weaker than it was. It's made disasterous mistakes, and the natural incompatities among its supporters are getting interesting. This doesn't mean it's become harmless and there are certainly still excellent reasons to oppose it, but imho, it's not nearly as scary as it was a year or two ago.

The other is psychological. Amp up the fear too high, and some people get paralyzed.

I'm asking those of you who've been following politics more carefully than I have: what mix of emotional appeals have contributed to changes you've wanted?

Comments

[madfilkentist]

Fear is particularly dangerous as an agent of change. It makes people accept alternatives that they wouldn't accept in a rational state, often ones which are worse than the status quo. In particular, it encourages people to cede even more power over their lives. The Bush administration has shown a knack for using fear for this purpose. There are demagogues regularly seen in Harvard Square -- LaRouchies and old-style communists -- who try to use fear of Bush to gain power for themselves.

Moral indignation is more likely to achieve positive results. It requires more work to achieve, but it's less apt to turn into a demagogic force of its own.

[nancylebov.livejournal.com]

How do you distinguish between moral indignation and anger?

[madfilkentist]

Anger doesn't have to offer a justification. Moral indignation does.

I can be angry at the weather; I'd have a hard time being morally outraged at it.