Political messaging: threat saliency over substantive desires.

[A short essay I wrote in January 2019 about threat and security in political messaging]

Democracy is messy. It’s the nature of governance by many; it’s the nature of anything directed by many! Conflicting opinions and waves of thought conflicting with apathy and disinterest lead to a system that can quickly go from policy victory to policy defeat if the right constituents are activated. There are ways to ‘clean up the mess,’ should a party in a parliamentary system win outright and form a single government they have the ability to get a lot of things done, that is, if they can get their entire party to agree on everything the leadership has decided is a priority. In a presidential system like the US's, a party can grasp the Presidency and both chambers of congress and still manage to step all over their own priorities: see the recent example of Trump and the republican held congress from 2017 to 2019. The reality is that garnering a lockstep agreement on political opinion is hard, even among peoples who have otherwise organized due to their political likenesses. 

So then how do you formulate agreement in a democratic polity? You need to find a way to motivate voters to not only support your party and your candidates, you need to find a way to build a cohesive message for those candidates and that party. The traditional method would be through the use of party platforms or manifestos such as in the Anglo-American setting of creating a position in the lead up to national elections. But this is boring, most voters just don’t have the time or energy to look through a document, no matter how concise, to decide on which party to vote for. Instead, many voters use the media to make their judgements on what party or politician to support. This of course creates difficulties for both candidates and parties who are attempting to build consensus and craft a particular image. Just like in the marketing of a product of service, there is a desire to control the message. But considering that most journalists have no reason to satisfy the party or the politicians every desire, the stories reported are not necessarily what the politicians and party want the public to hear. 

This problem of media amplification has become even more troublesome to politicians in the last several decades as the traditional media landscape has been radically transformed by first cable television and then the internet. While this opening has allowed for more party favorable outlets to operate, it has also ensured that there will always be a critical voice on every action, speech, vote, or statement. It also requires that messaging must become shorter, more concise, easier to consume. This is, of course, very difficult for most political and policy decisions. Running and maintaining a country is not easy, and it certainly isn’t simple. So politicians have turned to messaging that works. Bombast, drama, and intrigue can activate the otherwise uninterested voter. Much as an ad for Homeland leaves the viewer wanting more, a political message that warns of the dangers espoused in such a TV program lead the voter to protect themselves. 

After the fall of the Soviet Union at the start of the 1990s the western world looked for its next competitor. Francis Fukuyama declared the ‘End of History’ while his mentor Samuel Huntington wrote about the coming ‘clash of civilizations;’ there was a general feeling of uncertainty, not because things looked bleak, but because things seemed unduly bright. In this space numerous tracts of intellectual discourse sprung up across the social sciences as to what would happen now that the western system of liberal democracy had seemingly won the day. Barry Busan and Ole Wæver developed a system of analysis called securitization to look at the way in which post-cold war politicians were engaging with policy ideas and political fights. Securitization is a process in which a political or policy topic is turned into a matter of survival for some form or fashion of the nation. The argument being that action is needed to forestall or eliminate the possibility of some existential threat to the nation. The threat can be formulate towards any number of things and can be based in truth, partial truth, or no truth at all. Climate change and environmental policy is an example of an existential threat that is probably true and deserving of the discourse of securitization.  However, politicians have used securitizing language for a whole host of subjects we may not traditionally consider existentially threatening. The most recent example may be the discourse around immigration in both the United States and in Europe. It’s a conversation based on some truths: mass immigration can threaten the character of a nation as well as putting undue strain upon the social welfare systems of a state. Of course the language used to securitize immigration tends to go further than this. 

This leads back to the idea of political messaging in a digital attention-thirsty era. What’s the quickest way to grab attention? Is it to promote positivity and enthusiasm for progressive policy, or is to create a common foe, an enemy, a threat? The latter is more likely to garner attention, and not just among an audience that enthusiastically internalizes the message but also through those who disagree and feel the need to refute the message. Regardless, the language of securitization creates interest, people watch, listen, read. The language of non-securitized policy naturally doesn’t gain the same traction. If I'm tied to the train tracks and offered a pair of scissors or the latest book from George R.R. Martin, I will take the scissors every time, regardless of how much I enjoy ‘A Song of Ice and Fire.’ It’s this messaging that right-wing populists have been able to wield in the last several years to garner votes and win elections. No matter the strength of a positive message, if I can be convinced that my way of life, my job, my social positioning, or my family are under threat, I will act on the hypothetical threat before returning to the hypothetical positives. A problem that threatens will always be dealt with before a problem that inconveniences.