Why Democrats’ strategy of fear may be failing them in the long term

Since 2016, Democrats have increasingly asked voters to rally not around a compelling vision for America’s future but around fear of what would happen if Donald Trump returns. Each election is used as the last firewall before disaster. Democracy is at the ballot box. Institutions are under siege. The country cannot endure another Trump term. Some of these warnings may be sincerely felt, and some may be justified. But when politics becomes an endless series of alarms, something deeper begins to erode: A political party can forget how to talk about anything beyond the immediate.

In my work as a psychotherapist, I often see what happens when people organize their lives around preventing old pain from recurring. Their thinking narrows down to caution, avoidance, and threat management. Instead of moving towards the life they want, they become preoccupied with making sure the worst thing never happens again. This is a model that I will explore more fully in my upcoming book. Therapy NationIt offers a useful lens through which to understand what is happening to democratic politics.

For a decade, the Democratic Party’s most emotionally consistent message has been about what disaster to prevent rather than what kind of country it wants to build. This urgency proved politically beneficial. It brought together some moderates, progressives and uneasy independents who agreed on little other than the need to stop Trump. But any election framed primarily as disaster prevention carries a hidden psychological cost: It trains voters to experience politics as permanent emergency management. A party can be very clear about the danger it sees while remaining frustratingly vague about the future it wants to create. An alert may increase engagement, but it is much less effective at creating lasting commitment.

WHEN WE CALL EVERYTHING ‘ISM’, WE ARE CANCELING FROM HEARING WHAT VOTERS ARE REALLY CONCERNED ABOUT

Politics can fall into the same trap. For Democrats, 2016 was more than just an election loss. It shattered a narrative that many in the party had quietly internalized: that demographic momentum, the cultural influence of elites, and even the course of history were moving in their direction. Hillary Clinton’s defeat disrupted the sense of inevitability that had shaped elite political assumptions for years. What happened next was understandable. The key strategic question was how to prevent Trump’s return.

In the short term, this worked. Opposition created discipline. It provided urgency, money, buy-in and a common emotional language for an otherwise unwieldy coalition. But fear is an unstable, long-term motivator. Consider the patient who began exercising only after his doctor warned him that he was on the verge of a heart attack. Panic may drive him to the gym, but that motivation often fades once the immediate danger is gone.

In contrast, the person preparing for the marathon is driven by something more durable: a vision of who they want to be. Discipline is enduring because it is tied to passion, identity and a meaningful future. The situation is no different in political parties. A movement can win moments by telling voters what needs to be stopped, but it can build a lasting identity by telling them what future is worth creating.

This is where Democrats are now stuck. Their strongest unifying message often remains the need to block Trump, protect institutions from him, or prevent the return of the disruption he represents. These arguments may be motivating in the short term, but they don’t answer the deeper democratic question voters will eventually ask: What positive national story do you present? You can see the problem in the fact that nearly every policy dispute, court decision, or election result is now portrayed as existential collapse rather than ordinary democratic conflict.

DEMOCRATS ARE MAKING A CRITICAL MISTAKE AND VOTERS KNOW THEM

The long-term cost of reactionary politics is identity. Fear creates short-term harmony while postponing difficult discussions about class, immigration, public safety, economic aspirations, and cultural priorities. These tensions do not disappear just because the coalition remains emotionally united against a threat. They remain unresolved beneath the surface, but return later with greater force. What fear represses can never truly be reconciled.

CLICK FOR OTHER OPINIONS OF FOX NEWS

This is why democratic identity is unstable. When the opposition becomes the organizing force, the demands disappear. Strategy becomes defense. Political imagination is shrinking. A movement that defines itself primarily by the threat it opposes eventually faces the danger of being psychologically captured by this threat.

CLICK TO DOWNLOAD FOX NEWS APPLICATION

Over time, the price for this is fatigue and exhaustion. When politics becomes an endless series of alarms, citizens begin to lose faith in the possibility of collective progress. Democracy is starting to look more like constant prioritization than self-government. Cynicism hardens. Trust erodes.

Voters will rally around the danger for a while, but eventually they will want something more permanent: direction, purpose, and a future in which they can actually see themselves living. Fear may win elections, but vision builds executive identity.

CLICK HERE FOR MORE FROM JONATHAN ALPERT