The paradox of the fear voter
Is choosing the lesser evil a better choice? An essay.
Fear. It's a topic we rarely discuss, yet it increasingly shapes our actions. We fear (climate) change, progress, regression, illness, death, and old age. We fear friction and setbacks, even growth. These days, it seems we're afraid of everything, particularly anything or anyone different from ourselves. We've become xenophobic, not so much towards foreigners, but towards dissenters, the strangers within our own society.
Fear is the mind killer
Fear cripples our minds, making us irrational and susceptible to nonsense. It oversimplifies our thinking into stark binaries: black and white, good and evil, us and them. We measure everything against our own 'flawless' actions, and the 'blame' invariably lies with others. This approach paves the way for chaos and rigidity. Trust in others' good intentions and in the self-correcting nature of democratic institutions wanes. We become obsessed with shielding our narrow worldview from being shattered by our opponents. In our fearful state, there is only one truth—ours.
Fear Leads to Radicalization
In a world dominated by fear, multiple perspectives cannot coexist. There is only right and wrong, with a vast chasm between them. If we possess truth and righteousness, then others must lie and be wrong. The middle ground, where both parties share partial truths, vanishes. Pluralism, with its diverse norms, values, life experiences, and wisdom, is sidelined. Only one set of beliefs is acceptable, deemed morally superior to all others. Diplomacy, personal responsibility, and basic respect for others fade away, undermining the possibility of finding broadly supported solutions. We entrench ourselves with like-minded individuals behind walls of self-righteousness, launching our 'truths' at others. Every backlash, filled with supposed lies and disinformation, prompts us to dig in deeper until one side can only win at the expense of the other, and monoculture becomes the sole desirable outcome.
Radicalization Leads to Intolerance and Oppression
Radicalization inevitably leads to rhetorical despotism. It fosters prejudices that justify immoral actions like demonizing, sanctioning, oppression, and cancel culture. We no longer ask, we judge. We don't talk with each other anymore, nor are we willing to compromise. We rationalize our own evil actions as necessary, while magnifying the malice of our opponents. We erect walls against arguments that might challenge our perspective or reveal our own faults. We feed on distorted facts to discredit others. When one argument is refuted, we produce another. When arguments fail, we label the person 'evil' and 'a liar,' accusing them of ‘trying to destroy our democracy and seeking subjugation’. Surrounded by 'enemies,' we adopt war language and implement measures to 'protect' ourselves, especially against internal foes. We block, suppress, ban, and censor until all dissenting voices are silenced and we are trapped in our self-made prison. Only then do we realize that there was no external enemy to begin with. Our self-created image of fear was sufficient to make us relinquish our freedoms beforehand.
The Paradox of the Fear Voter
Last week, three seemingly unrelated events unfolded, each so paradoxical and irrational that they challenge our understanding of mass behavior.
Viewing these examples through the lens of fear may help to explain these paradoxical behaviors. Fear voters are driven by anxiety and insecurity, often manipulated by those who exploit these emotions for power. This leads to seemingly irrational choices, such as supporting leaders who may not be fit for office or endorsing policies that centralize power and restrict freedoms.
To regain control over our democracy and our lives, we must recognize and confront the role of fear in our decision-making processes. By understanding the motivations behind fear voting, we can make more informed choices that reflect our true values and aspirations, rather than succumbing to the manipulation of fear-mongers.
Though much more could be explored on these topics, I'll keep it brief for today's discussion
1. The American Television Debate Between Biden and Trump
The recent debate starkly highlighted what has been evident to the rest of the world for at least two years: the current U.S. president, due to his advanced age, no longer possesses the mental capacity to govern effectively. It's already quite remarkable that a modern democracy of over 330 million people can only produce presidential candidates well past retirement age. The reactions to the debate were even more telling. Republican euphoria is understandable, but the steadfast support of Democrats for their party, despite recent events, defies rational explanation.
Why does the Democratic Party continue to back an elderly figurehead who clearly cannot fulfill his duties? Who benefits from this? (‘Democracy’ is not a valid answer here!)
Why have the government and media tried to obscure Biden's mental health issues? In a healthy democracy, wouldn’t he simply resign and be replaced by the vice president?
If Biden is unable to govern and the vice president doesn't take over, who is actually running the White House? Who did Americans unknowingly vote for?
If the Democratic Party is truly democratic, why are laws and systems being manipulated to eliminate political opponents, suppress information, and censor dissent?
In a healthy democracy with rational citizens, you would expect a self-correcting response, with voters choosing differently. However, a significant group remains loyal to their party and president, despite claiming to uphold democracy and despise lies. Why then do they accept the blatant falsehoods and undemocratic actions of their own party?
2. Ursula von der Leyen Gets a Second Term as President of the European Commission
Ursula von der Leyen was recently granted a second term as Chairwoman of the European Commission, despite her unpopularity with many European voters. Her tenure has been marked by the centralization of power and the imposition of restrictive measures on member states. She also has openly declared her intentions to further consolidate power if re-elected.
Yet her faction in the European Parliament is by far the largest and gained an additional twelve seats in the last elections.
This prompts reflection. When there is widespread disagreement with the policies of the European Union, such as unchecked expansion, extensive technocratization, and the erosion of autonomy and freedom, why do we persistently vote for the party that implemented these policies?
3. When National Interests Make Way for a NATO Job
Last week, the appointment of the Dutch former Prime Minister as the new Secretary General of NATO was finalized. In a concluding interview, Rutte openly acknowledged what had long been suspected: he had been approached for the position much earlier. He didn’t mention, however, that he deliberately orchestrated the cabinet's fall in July 2023 to free himself for this new role. Yet, all indicators already pointed to this scenario back in July 2023, even in mainstream media:
"According to those involved, the prime minister is on a collision course and is aiming for the fall of the cabinet."
"Sources say that Rutte himself came up with the new measure a few days ago, even though he knew it was not open to discussion for his coalition partners."
"Rutte deliberately crossed the line."
"He seems to be looking for a way to bring down the cabinet. He is reckless."
(Source: NOS.nl, dated July 6, 2023)
The cabinet officially collapsed a day later. Subsequently, the longest-serving prime minister, known for his WEF connections and numerous crises, declared his resignation. Unlike in 2021, when new elections were held within two months, this time we faced a wait of over five months to cast our votes again. The formation of the new cabinet was further postponed for seven months until Rutte confirmed his NATO role. We observe the events, we are aware of the situation, and yet, when the moment to vote arrives, many still opt for the well-trodden path.
Choosing the Lesser Evil
Why do people continue to vote for parties that clearly do not represent their interests, lie to them, and push the country in an unwanted direction? It seems to be driven by fear—fear of the opponent, now perceived as an enemy. In my opinion, most voters are aware of their party’s actions and can see through the blatant lies and flimsy excuses. However, because the perceived enemy is even scarier, lies more, and threatens their existence, they excuse their own side’s excesses and choose the familiar.
Fear is often said to be a bad counselor. It's worth investigating whether a 'strategic vote' actually provides the fear voter with what they expect.
The End of Democracy
A key similarity between the examples mentioned above is that many fear voters believe that if the opposing party wins, it will spell the end of democracy. They lack faith in their own institutions, fearing that a different choice by their countrymen will instantly lead to disaster and anarchy. Ironically, a fear vote keeps or brings into power people who are just as reckless as the opponents they fear. Fear leads to stagnation, and stagnation attracts the greedy and power-hungry, on both sides of the spectrum. By voting against autocracy, the freedom-loving democrat may inadvertently choose a totalitarian regime. Similarly, by casting a vote against a totalitarian regime, the freedom-loving republican may choose autocracy. What’s the difference?
He's such a nice man!
Another common trait among fear voters is their tendency to attribute numerous positive qualities to their own party leader. Phrases like "He is such a nice man," "He has managed to stay so grounded," "At least he remains decent," and "I genuinely feel acknowledged by him," are typical. Meanwhile, the opponent is often described as "a terrible man, a liar, a despot," and much much worse. When one candidate is perceived as an angel and the other as a monster, the choice seems obvious to many.
But what does "being nice" say about someone's leadership qualities? Does a lie become more palatable when it's wrapped in charm? Ultimately, isn't what a leader actually does far more important than what they say or how they appear?
Today, there may be an overemphasis on choosing the correct words and attitudes, leading to hasty judgments of those who deviate from the norm.
I Have No Other Choice
Once all arguments are set aside, the fear voter presents his ultimate defence: “then what should I vote for?” As if there is no option but to choose between two evils. Yet, it is rarely the case that there is no other choice. A lack of options is characteristic of dictatorships. Even in two-party systems like those in the United States and the United Kingdom, there is the possibility of voting for smaller third parties. However, many avoid this, fearing that it will hand victory to the opponent, completing the cycle once more.
The irony is that if you keep doing what you've always done, you’ll always get the same result. Politicians do not become more honest and sincere if they are rewarded for lies and deceit. Good leaders will not emerge if we continue to systematically elect bad ones. It's like playing football on the flanks, leaving the midfield unguarded and both goals wide open, making it easy for even the most incompetent players to score.
You can’t make good out of evil
Even when choosing the lesser evil, we must never forget that we’re still choosing evil. Evil cannot foster anything good. On the contrary, attempting to defeat evil generally engenders more evil. The world is filled with bad things, but that doesn't mean we have to perpetuate them. People who fear conservatives' Project 2025 should realize that the progressive 2030 Agenda can be just as restrictive and frightening.
We will never find a solution if we continue to play the game on the extremes. Fear voting is counterproductive, and blindly following extremes always compromises freedom and autonomy. It is crucial that we start thinking for ourselves again and take responsibility for our lives. We must start talking with those who hold different opinions instead of judging them. Ultimately, truth is only found in dialogue. The rest is merely prejudice, bias and superstition.
Are you intrigued by the above? I’ve written a compelling novel about our potential future if we persist in chasing extremes. It’s currently translated to English and will be available in a couple of months.
Sign up if you’d like to receive more articles with fresh insights on contemporary topics!