The Politics of Fear and Hope: How Leaders Shape Consensus

Why do we witness daily conflicts between politicians from opposing factions, characterized by a bitterness that overshadows the good manners of etiquette?

If I think of The All New Don't Think of an Elephant!: Know Your Values and Frame the Debate by George Lakoff, which I recently reread, it’s because the frames that resonate with most Italians are purely tactical, tied to heated clashes. When much of our culture develops on social media, where everything and its opposite are said, certainties fade, and fear emerges. In such a situation, it becomes natural to cling to a point of reference that, now more than ever, is the leader: the figure who seems to offer certainty. It doesn’t matter if the leader lies, even blatantly. Reality is what they describe, while others are the ones distorting it.

A striking example is Alice Weidel, leader of the German far-right, who claimed that Hitler was a communist (news reported by Rai News: Hitler was a communist). This is an obvious falsehood, given that Hitler waged war against the USSR with the June 22, 1941 invasion under Operation Barbarossa. Declaring war on Marxist USSR is incompatible with supporting communism. Yet, despite the facts being well-known, thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands of people, will believe this statement and never change their minds.

When people follow a leader because they think they provide security, they trust them, they have faith. And faith, throughout history, has often been the cause of bloody religious wars.

In times of crisis, it’s logical to use a frame that leverages figures representing solutions and fostering unity against dangers. Conversely, in post-crisis periods, the frame should focus on growth and the future.

Indeed, a surprising element of the effectiveness of conservative politics, regardless of the nation, is that conservative leaders tend to adjust their messages based on circumstances. When fear and uncertainty prevail (wars, economic crises, social unrest), the message leverages these feelings, presenting themselves as bastions of stability and generating faith. During periods of normalcy or mild decline, however, they focus on hope, optimism, and necessary reforms to improve the future.

For example:

• Winston Churchill, conservative British Prime Minister during World War II, used rhetoric centered on the need to prepare for war because of the Nazi threat before being elected in 1940.
• Margaret Thatcher, also a British Prime Minister, capitalized on the UK’s economic instability in the 1970s to propose her program of "firmness" and reforms (the famous "There is no alternative").
• Ronald Reagan, President of the United States, whose foreign policy was focused on a firm stance against the Soviet Union, credited as a factor leading to the end of the Cold War, conveyed a message of confidence in the future with the slogan: "It’s morning again in America."
• José María Aznar, Spanish leader, focused on improving Spain’s economy and modernizing the country after years of socialist governance. He promised economic and fiscal reforms to transform Spain into a modern and competitive power.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, communication campaigns promoting vaccination reflected messages like: “Thanks to the vaccine, Italy is restarting,” “Vaccines are the result of the global community,” and “Vaccines are safe.” What does an average person care about Italy restarting? What tangible benefit do they see? Hearing that vaccines are “safe” might generate suspicion. What thought might come to someone who receives reassurance they didn’t ask for? A healthy person might wonder: “I feel fine, so why should I vaccinate and certainly feel unwell from the vaccination’s side effects?” Their point of reference is that they feel fine, and vaccination will make them feel worse. One of many effective frames could have focused on the significant loss from illness in one’s elderly relatives versus the certain but minimal side effects of vaccination.

This reflection shows that even in extraordinary situations like the pandemic, the frames used were often ineffective. Therefore, my advice is to adopt an influence strategy in both business and politics and start by reading George Lakoff’s work in its original version. Or… contact me!

Stefano Beretta

Ex CEO now free thinker

[email protected]