Be very very afraid, and then vote!

JB

A growing number of studies offer clues as to how terrorism and other deadly events affect people's voting decisions. The latest research shows that because such violent political acts are brutal reminders of death, they make conservatives, but not liberals, more hostile toward those perceived as different, and more supportive of extreme military policies, according to a study in April in Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin.

For 20 years, researchers have been exploring how people manage the fear engendered by intimations of mortality. Reminded of the inevitability of their own death (which happens to a lesser degree by merely walking past a funeral parlor), people try to quench or at least manage the resulting "existential terror" in several ways. They become more certain of their worldview or faith. They conform more closely to the norms of their society. They show greater reverence for symbols of their society, such as flags and crucifixes.

All of these make people feel more secure and, crucially, a part of something larger -- something that will outlive them.

Building up your own worldview requires disparaging (even unconsciously) that of others. If beliefs that contradict yours have any worth, then by definition they call into question the absolute validity of your own. The result is stronger feelings of hostility toward those with different values and beliefs.

This "worldview defense," says psychology researcher Sheldon Solomon of Skidmore College, "reduces the terror that reminders of your own death bring." These results have been replicated in some 300 lab experiments, including in cultures with very different ideas about an afterlife.

Which brings us back to the effect on voters of a terrorist attack and its brutal reminders of mortality. Although some voters would feel betrayed by incumbents who failed to protect them, researchers say, these days that trend would more likely be swamped by a surge toward candidates perceived as hawks on national security.

"We feel that unconscious thoughts about death do influence people's voting decisions, especially for folks who are not strongly committed to a candidate," says Prof. Solomon, expressing a consensus of those who have studied terrorism and voting behavior.

This account meshes with much of post 9-11 politics and it vindicates the logic of the Bush/Rove political strategy of polarization. As I argued in this op-ed written shortly after the 2004 election, the 2004 campaign was successfully waged on issues of fear. Note that if the research cited above is correct, making people with traditional values afraid may also make them more hostile to homosexuality and other forms of cultural permissiveness, because they will cling to their worldviews ever more fervently. Hence the one two punch of the War on Terror and gay marriage was a potent combination in the 2004 campaign for a key set of voters, the so-called "values voters."

It is an interesting fact that the September 11th attacks changed the key issues of American politics but did not remedy the country's polarization. If anything, political polarization become even more enhanced, and the most extreme conservative commentators have felt free in the current political climate to accuse liberals of destroying the country, endangering it, and even being traitors.

But all things must pass. The United States went through other periods of terror during the Red Scare and the McCarthy Era. It is worth noting that during the Cold War, when Americans were afraid of something much worse than suicide bombings-- thermonuclear annihilation-- the country eventually became much freer, with greater equality and greater respect for civil liberties. Although politicians can maintain political support through fear, they can't do so forever.

That does not mean, however, that they won't continue to try.