NEWNow you can listen to Fox News articles!
Since 2016, Democrats have been asking voters not to share a compelling vision of America’s future, but to fear what will happen if Donald Trump returns. Every election is played as the last wall before disaster. Democracy is on the ballot. Institutions are under siege. The country cannot survive another Trump term. Some of those warnings may sound sincere, and others may be justified. But when politics becomes an endless succession of alarms, something deeper begins to erode: a political party can forget to talk about anything beyond the emergency itself.
In my work as a psychotherapist, I often see what happens when people organize their lives to prevent old pain from reoccurring. Their thinking is reduced to monitoring, avoiding, and managing threats. Instead of moving on to the life they want, they focus on making sure the worst thing doesn’t happen again. It’s a pattern I explore in more detail in my forthcoming book, Healing Nationand provides a useful lens for understanding what has happened in democratic politics.
For a decade now, the Democratic Party’s most emotionally relevant message has tended to be less about what kind of country it wants to build than about the disaster that must be prevented. That urgency was useful in politics. It has brought together some conservatives, progressives, and liberal independents who agree little on the need to stop Trump. But every election designed primarily as disaster prevention carries a hidden psychological cost: it trains voters to experience politics as permanent emergency management. A party can sound endlessly clear about the danger it sees while remaining vague about the future it wants to make. Alarm may drive candidates, but it is not very effective at building long-lasting loyalty.
WHEN WE CALL EVERYTHING ‘ISM,’ WE STOP HEARD OF WHAT VOTERS REALLY CARE.
Politics can fall into the same trap. For Democrats, 2016 was about more than losing the election. It shattered the story that many in the party had quietly internalized: that demographic momentum, strong cultural influence, and even the background of history itself were all moving in their direction. Hillary Clinton’s defeat disrupted the sense of inevitability that has shaped political opinion for years. What followed was understandable. The key strategic question was how to prevent Trump’s comeback.
After a while, that worked. Opposition builds discipline. It gave urgency, money, votes, and a common emotional language to an unruly alliance. But fear is an unstable long-term motivator. Consider the patient who begins exercising only after his doctor warns him that he is about to have a heart attack. Panic may drive him to the gym, but that motivation often fades once the danger subsides.
In contrast, a person who trains for a marathon is driven by something lasting: the idea of who they want to be. Discipline lasts because it aligns with aspiration, identity and a meaningful future. Political parties are no different. An organization can win moments by telling voters what needs to be stopped, but it builds a lasting identity by telling them that the future is worth creating.
This is where the Democrats now seem to be stuck. Their strong unifying message is often the need to stop Trump, protect institutions from him, or prevent a return to the disruption he represents. Those arguments may converge over time, but they don’t answer the deep democratic question voters ultimately ask: what good national story do you offer? You can see the problem in the way almost every policy disagreement, court decision, or election result is now being narrated as an existential crisis rather than a normal democratic conflict.
DEMOCRATS MADE A CRITICAL MISTAKE — AND VOTERS KNOW IT
The long-term cost of active politics is identity. Fear creates temporary solidarity while relegating difficult debates about class, immigration, social security, economic aspirations, and cultural priorities. That tension does not go away just because the alliance remains emotionally united against the threat. They remain unresolved at the bottom, and come back later with great force. That suppressing fear does not really bring back.
CLICK HERE TO VIEW MORE FOX NEWS
That is why the democratic identity felt unstable. When resistance becomes the organizing force, longing is concentrated. Strategy turns into defense. Political thought is declining. Movements that define themselves primarily by a counter-threat ultimately run the risk of being psychologically captured by that threat.
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS PROGRAM
Over time, the cost is fatigue and exhaustion. When politics becomes an endless succession of alarms, citizens begin to lose faith in the possibility of progress on their own. Democracy begins to feel less like self-governance and more like an endless experiment. Criticism is strong. Trust is destructive.
Voters will rally around danger for a while, but ultimately they want something more supportive: direction, purpose, and a future they can see themselves living in. Fear may win elections, but opinion creates a dominant identity.
CLICK HERE TO LEARN MORE FROM JONATHAN ALPERT
