Playing on fears an effective strategy

Hey there, time traveller!
This article was published 12/08/2015 (4036 days ago), so information in it may no longer be current.

Be afraid. Be very afraid. And then vote for me.

The politics of fear is hardly a new concept. For as long as we’ve had political ambition and rhetoric, we’ve had politicians willing to scare the pants off voters to win their support. This election will be no different.

Conservative Leader Stephen Harper pushed the bogeyman button early in this campaign when he identified security — and more specifically the threat of the Islamic State group — as one of his major election themes.

IS is a perfect combatant for Harper and the Conservatives. Narratives focused on military action, terrorism and national security tend to favour incumbent political leaders. And not just in Canada; leaders of countries around the world tend to get a bump in opinion polls on leadership ratings when they are involved in any armed skirmish. Add in an act of domestic terrorism, and you’ve got a political winner.

The political bogeyman strategy is not hard to understand. When our otherwise comfortable existence is thrown into chaos by an act of terrorism, or a military conflict in another land in which we are involved, or a troubling act of violence at home, citizens tend to rally around their current leader. So much so that fear over a military or security threat can, in some instances, save a floundering government.

In the past, the subject most likely to be the foundation of a fear-inspiring political rant was crime. Not so long ago, leaders of governments at all levels were portraying Canada as a nation where criminals were threatening to take over. Statistics belied that notion but didn’t stop the rhetoric.

In this election, efforts to provoke widespread fear over crime and criminals are very much part of the Conservative campaign. This week, Harper pledged money for the RCMP to fight a war against illegal drugs. The announcement also served as a platform to rail against opposition support for the legalization of marijuana and safe-injection sites for intravenous drug users.

In Harper’s view, NDP and Liberal positions on these issues are, in and of themselves, a threat to public safety. It’s a strong message, delivered with sufficient bluster and designed to position the Liberals and NDP as weak on criminals. It is, however, a mostly fallacious argument. There is no pressing evidence Canada is facing a huge increase in drug-related crimes. At last count, reported drug crime was on the rise, but more than half of all drug-related offences in the past decade are related to marijuana possession. More serious offences (trafficking, import/export and production) have actually declined by more than a third over that period.

Given those numbers, and the fact a solid majority of Canadians would like to ease laws punishing people for marijuana possession, it’s easy to see Harper is demonstrating one of the pillars of the politics of fear: denounce a problem that really doesn’t exist and then point out how weak your opponents are in addressing it. The opposition can either ignore the allegation, which makes them look weak, or play along and come up with a solution to a problem that isn’t there.

The same holds true for safe-injection sites. Abundant research has shown safe-injection sites help intravenous drug users avoid serious lifestyle-related health risks and cut down significantly on drug-related crime. Still, Harper and the Conservatives oppose their operation and have taken steps to ensure no one can meet federal requirements to open such a facility.

In the current election campaign, the terrorist threat seems poised to take priority over the domestic criminal threat. Harper demonstrated this shift when he promised this past week to invoke a travel ban for Canadians seeking to visit countries controlled by terrorists.

It offered Harper the opportunity to portray the opposition as being weak on terrorism. Harper would like to see Canada in a longer, more involved mission against IS in Syria; Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau and NDP Leader Tom Mulcair would like to avoid combat and focus on military training and humanitarian aid.

Given Canada does not have the muscle to make a strong military contribution, it would be unfair to say one position (a full combat role against IS) makes Canada safer, while the other (a scaled-back role limited to training) opens Canada to a greater terrorist threat.

Again, the politics of fear has two distinct parts: first, you must convince voters of a dire threat to their safety and security; and second, you must convince voters you and only you can keep them safe. The corollary is, of course, the other guys will leave you completely vulnerable to the forces of evil.

The stakes are high, and the parties competing for voter support are often willing to say anything to gain an advantage. And while the morality of the politics of fear is very much up for debate, one thing is not: its effectiveness.

dan.lett@freepress.mb.ca

Dan Lett
Columnist

Dan Lett is a columnist for the Free Press, providing opinion and commentary on politics in Winnipeg and beyond. Born and raised in Toronto, Dan joined the Free Press in 1986.  Read more about Dan.

Dan’s columns are built on facts and reactions, but offer his personal views through arguments and analysis. The Free Press’ editing team reviews Dan’s columns before they are posted online or published in print — part of the our tradition, since 1872, of producing reliable independent journalism. Read more about Free Press’s history and mandate, and learn how our newsroom operates.