As the saying goes, “fear is a powerful motivator.” A survey of 11,000 U.S. federal workers shows they are terrified of mass firings, political coercion, job insecurity, and retaliation for reporting wrongdoing or voicing opposition. This week’s Supreme Court ruling that gives the president more power to fire federal employees just adds to the angst.
The rise in fear (and decline in morale) follows recent executive orders stripping protections from thousands of senior civil servants. A 2025 Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey (FEVS) reveals a striking contrast from 2024’s FEVS.
According to University of Michigan Economics Professor Justin Wolpers, an OPM survey of federal workers reveals a sharp increase in fear and chaos, a decline in morale, and an rise in costs to American taxpayers. Yet, members of the Civil Service are still dedicated to public service, Wolpers reports.
No doubt fearing the results of a similar survey this year, OPM canceled the 2026 FEVS and is instead changing future survey questions to purportedly focus on performance.
Fear is used as a motivator by both Democrats and Republicans, as explained by Republican strategist Stuart Stevens in his landmark book “The Conspiracy to End America: Five Ways My Old Party Is Driving Democracy Away” (Twelve, Hachette Book Group, 2023).
“All political parties use fear of an opponent to unify supporters, and they always have. When Democrats attack Republicans by saying Medicare cuts will effectively roll old ladies in wheelchairs off cliffs, that's fear. When Nixon ran on his infamous law-and-order platform in 1968, it was very much a strategy based on fear. What is different about the current Republican Party is that fear is its organizing principle, both internally and externally. The party drives support through fear and enforces discipline on the elected officials through fear.
January 6, 2021, was the defining moment of today's Republican Party. Fear drove the mob to the Capitol –– and the mob was called to action by a fearful leader. They were afraid of the choice 81 million Americans had made about who would be their next president, and they were fearful that their coalition consisted of 85 percent white voters was not big enough to win in 2020 America. They were terrified of what an inclusive, multicultural America could do to their status and superiority.”
One wonders if fear (of looking weak? of more Epstein revelations?) drove Trump to conduct a war of choice with Iran –– and then if fear of an economic catastrophe (“the late, great Herbert Hoover”) drove him to end the war with concessions to Iran: lifting sanctions, ending the naval blockade, allowing development of ballistic missiles, offering up to $300 billion to assist with Iran's postwar reconstruction, and more.
President Putin used fear as a reason to Russians for his unprovoked invasion of Ukraine. Putin lied that democratic Ukraine was a nest of Nazis. Putin, in fact, fears the influence of free NATO democratic nations on his power as an autocrat, propped up by wealthy oligarchs.
Stevens makes the point that Russian oligarchs actually fear Putin, while U.S. politicians fear American billionaires (and now a trillionaire!).
“When Vladimir Putin decided to invade a neighboring country, dooming hundreds of thousands of Russians and Ukrainians in a war of genocide, it was his decision alone. Western Russian observers speculated that Russian oligarchs might be able to press Putin to end the war. But it never happened. These men—and they are all men—who possess enormous money, influence, and power nonetheless wake up and fall asleep terrified of a single short former KGB agent who drove a St. Petersburg taxi in the 1990s. They know for a fact that a jail cell, an open window, or a slow death by poison is the fate of those who dare not obey the Russian czar.
In the American political system, on the other hand, it's the politician who wakes up and goes to bed fearing the very wealthy. For all the never-ending talk of campaign finance reform, the billionaire class has designed perfectly legal methods to exert tremendous influence over the democratic process. In theory, this is a power that is ideologically neutral, available to liberal billionaires like George Soros and libertarian conservatives like the Koch brothers. The same is also theoretically true of the First Amendment. Notionally, a powerful far-left television network –– one operating with the same disregard for ethical journalism that epitomizes Fox News ––could emerge and successfully compete with Fox News. But it has never happened and there is no reason to believe it will. So it is with campaign finance. The wealthy on the right have proven to be more effective exerting their influence than those on the center-left.”
Before mega-donors dominated election campaigns Stuart Stevens served well-known Republicans such as Massachusetts Governor William Weld, Pennsylvania Governor Tom Ridge, and several U.S. Senators; he also led Mitt Romney’s campaign for president.
“For most of the years that I worked in campaigns, the popular belief that politicians sell their votes never struck me as accurate,” Stevens observes. “The corruption of money in the American political system is not so much the corruption of individual politicians but the corruption of the entire electoral process.”
And fear motivates the ultra-rich on the Right who are afraid of losing some of their wealth and power as well as what Steven calls a “demographic apocalypse confronting Republicans.” Young voters and people of color are turning away from the GOP, which fears "replacement."
“At the heart of the Republican Party’s coordinated, dedicated, and patient efforts to change the legal parameters of how American democracy functions is the deep fear that the party is doomed,” Stevens writes.
“If you believe that America was chosen by God to be a white, Christian nation, then the looming specter of a minority-majority America demands action.”
“It's obvious why Republicans have consistently pressed to make it harder to register and more difficult to vote. In 2015, when Donald Trump began openly to challenge the legitimacy of any election he didn't win, he was building on the well-seasoned doubts of election integrity Republicans have used for decades to justify their highly focused efforts to curate the electorate. The "Big Lie" was simply an amplification of the time-tested voter-fraud lie.
Both parties are constantly engaged in efforts to change voting laws. The difference is that Democrats consistently try to broaden voter participation, while Republicans attempt to shrink it.”
One side fears losing power and privilege; the other side fears losing freedom, democracy and the rights guaranteed in the Constitution.
That last fear is not unfounded. Consider Trump’s 2022 “Truth Social” comment related to losing in 2020. He said election fraud allows "allows for the termination of all rules, regulations, and articles, even those found in the Constitution.”
Trump arrived with his sons in a Boeing 747-8 that was a gift by government of Qatar but that cost taxpayers at least $400 million to retrofit. The visit came on the day a financial disclosure report revealed that Trump generated more than $2.2 billion in his first year in office, mostly from cryptocurrency and stock investments of corporations he promoted. (His sons and other family members are making millions in government connected businesses.)
What Teddy Roosevelt openly feared was grift, corporate influence, and “corruption of the electorate.” His concerns were deeply rooted in the history of the founding of the United States even before July 4, 1776.
Stevens writes:
“In April 1699, the Virginia General Assembly passed a law prohibiting a candidate ‘or any persons on their behalf’ from giving voters ‘money, meat, drink, entertainment, or provision or … any present, gift, reward, or entertainment, etc. in order to be elected.’ Two centuries later, U.S. President Theodore Roosevelt devoted whole sections of his 1904 and 1905 State of the Union speeches to calls for campaign-finance reform. ‘There is no enemy of free government more dangerous and none so insidious as the corruption of the electorate,’ he told Congress in 1904. A year later, he called for the banning of contributions by corporations and their directors, reforms that have never been universally enacted in American elections: ‘All contributions by corporations to any political committee or for any political purpose should be forbidden by law,’ Roosevelt contended.”
“Of all forms of tyranny, the least attractive and the most vulgar is the tyranny of mere wealth, the tyranny of a plutocracy,” Roosevelt warned in his 1913 autobiography.
Roosevelt welcomed “muckraker” journalists to uncover corporate misdeeds. He used federal prosecutors and wide-ranging regulatory legislation to fight corruption, filing 40 antitrust lawsuits and breaking up monopolies.
TR was a proud Republican in the mold of Abraham Lincoln (born in 1858, just three years before the start of the Civil War and Lincoln’s preservation of the Union.)
Fear is a powerful motivator. But it is also a catalyst for change.
Stevens concludes with a challenge: “It is up to each of us to save the America we love. We are our own last best hope. No one is coming to save us. We are our own destiny.”
No comments:
Post a Comment