FEARDOM

HOW POLITICIANS EXPLOIT YOUR EMOTIONS

AND WHAT YOU CAN DO TO STOP THEM

CONNOR BOYACK

Libertas Press
Salt Lake City, Utah
 DEDICATION
To all those in my life who helped me find the red pill.
 FEARDOM | 3

INTRODUCTION
“Timid men… prefer the calm of despotism to
the tempestuous sea of liberty.” 1
—Thomas Jefferson

A
T THE BRINK OF WAR with France, the U.S. Congress
passed a collection of laws referred to as the Alien and
Sedition Acts. Described by their Federalist proponents as
“war measures,” the Democrat-Republican opponents saw them as
unconstitutional and indefensible. While each of the four laws was
claimed to be a response to escalating tensions with France, they were
mostly a political weapon to be used against members of the minority
(Democrat-Republican) party.
One of the laws, the Naturalization Act, increased the time
immigrants had to wait for citizenship and voting rights from 5 to 14
years. As immigrants tended to favor Thomas Jefferson’s Democrat-
Republican party (commonly referred to simply as Republicans), the
Federalist intent of this law was to minimize the growth, and therefore
the power, of the opposition. As one Federalist said in congressional
debate, “[I do] not wish to invite hordes of… the turbulent and
disorderly of all parts of the world, to come here with a view to
4  |  CONNOR BOYACK

disturb our tranquility, after having succeeded in the overthrow of

their own governments.”2
Two of the four laws, the Alien Enemies Act and the Alien Friends
Act, purportedly granted authority to the president to deport an alien
who was either deemed dangerous or who was from a country at war
with the United States. The worst of the four laws, the Sedition Act,
criminalized speech by punishing any person who wrote or printed
“false, scandalous and malicious writing” against Congress or the
president that meant to “defame… or to bring them, or either of
them, into contempt or disrepute; or to excite against them… the
hatred of the good people of the United States…”3 (Notably, the
Sedition Act did not punish such speech against the Vice President,
Thomas Jefferson, who was not a Federalist.) President John Adams
signed the Acts into law on June 14, nine years to the day after the
French Revolution began.
Understanding the controversy behind these laws requires a bit
of context, and helps set the stage for the subject we’ll be discussing
in this book. Political parties were a new development in American
politics, and deep divisions quickly emerged as various factions in the
government rallied around the important issues of the day. While
domestic differences created contention between the Federalist
and Democratic-Republican parties, nothing made their blood boil
like foreign affairs. Though citizens of a new, independent nation,
Americans remained interested in—and greatly affected by—
European politics. The Federalists sided with Britain in its conflict
against France, as they were worried about the mob rule they saw
rising out of the ashes of France’s former monarchical system and
the radical ideas that tended to germinate from such political chaos.
On the other hand, Republicans favored the French and supported
their newfound ideals of liberté, égalité, fraternité. They saw in France
echoes of America’s own fight for freedom.
With control of Congress and the presidency, the Federalists took
advantage of their political power to crack down on their enemies
 FEARDOM  |  5

and ensure that France’s influence would be minimized in America.

But rather than targeting and deporting French immigrants accused
of insurrection, Federalists focused on their political rivals, who were
perceived to be sympathetic towards—if not outwardly supportive
of—France’s ideals and methods. Under the assumed authority of
the Alien and Sedition Acts, federal officials arrested twenty-five men,
most of whom were editors of Republican newspapers. Matthew
Lyon, a Republican congressman from Vermont, became the first
person to be put on trial under the Sedition Act. Lyon had written a
letter published in the paper for which he was an editor, criticizing
Adams’ “continued grasp for power.”4 A federal grand jury indicted
Lyon for intentionally stirring up hatred against the president. He
was later sentenced by a Federalist judge to four months in jail and
a $1,000 fine, having been convicted by the jury (assembled from
Vermont towns that were Federalist strongholds) for expressing
seditious words with “bad intent.”5 Among those arrested was the
grandson of Benjamin Franklin, who worked as the editor of the
Philadelphia Democrat-Republican Aurora, and who was charged with
libeling President Adams and thus encouraging sedition among his
readers. Thomas Cooper, editor of the Sunbury and Northumberland
Gazette, was likewise indicted for sedition, fined $400, and made to
serve six months in jail. Criticism of the government had become
treason against the United States.
Many themes can be observed in the events of 1798: national
security in a fledgling nation; partisan rivalry among men who had
previously fought side by side in the American Revolution; the
destabilizing influence of a heavy influx of immigrants; and the
impact of foreign affairs on American politics. However, another
(less discernible) theme merits special attention, as it pervaded the
political process prior to, during, and after the enactment of the
Alien and Sedition Acts: fear.
As David McCullough writes in his biography of John Adams,
“There was rampant fear of the enemy within”6 during this era. For
6  |  CONNOR BOYACK

Federalists, that enemy was French immigrants whose very existence

suggested the potential for French Revolution spillover into America.
Republicans, on the other hand, considered the Federalists the
real “enemy within,” fearing increased government power with its
corresponding centralization and likely abuse. John Adams feared
the existence of enemy spies. In some cases, fear was a natural and
reasonable response to chaotic circumstances. But in other ways, fear
was manufactured by influential individuals hoping to consolidate
power and enact a desired policy.
To be sure, uncertainty permeated the political process in America’s
early years. The very real threat of attack on the budding nation gave
urgency to settling the controversy over national security issues.
Interestingly, although the United States of America has emerged from
her early days of extreme vulnerability to become a world superpower,
the theme of fear seems as ever-present today as it was back then.
As John Adams himself once wrote, “Fear is the foundation of most
governments.”7 Some things, it seems, never change.
Fear is simply part of the human condition—a motivating
influence upon our thoughts and actions. Its emotional irrationality
leads otherwise intelligent people to abandon logic and wisdom; as
Edmund Burke once said, “No passion so effectually robs the mind
of all its powers of acting and reasoning as fear.”8 It incapacitates
its victim, encouraging him to fecklessly submit to others’ proposed
solutions. These supposed solutions are often offered by conniving
conspirators looking to capitalize on the individual’s defenselessness,
much like a predator inducing a temporary state of paralysis in its
prey. Rather than acting, the fearful person is acted upon.
For this reason, despots and authoritarians have historically
studied and utilized this raw emotion to pursue their goals. Political
campaigns are built upon fear. Propaganda can’t work without it. The
centralization of power is a natural extension of it. When Adams
referred to fear as the foundation of most governments, it was not
merely a rhetorical flourish. Even the primary role of government—
 FEARDOM  |  7

physical protection of the citizenry—implies the fear of future attack.

As the state has grown, and as political power has concentrated, entire
groups of people are motivated to action on any given issue, whether
at the ballot box or protesting in the streets, using fear.
Rahm Emanuel, then White House Chief of Staff, stated in
a 2008 interview, “You don’t ever want a crisis to go to waste; it’s
an opportunity to do important things that you would otherwise
avoid.”9 Crises generate fear of the unknown and of the future, and
Emanuel’s observation highlights the political expediency found in
taking advantage of such situations to advance policies that people
would likely reject, absent such fear. Conservatives predictably
erupted in feigned horror at Emanuel’s statement, shocked that the
“left” could dare use this tactic to their political advantage. “Who’s
out there saying [what Emanuel said]?” asked Glenn Beck. “Is it
Russia, is it Venezuela, is it the Middle East, is it extremists, is it
anarchists here in America, is it the United Nations, is it our own
progressives here in America that would like to overturn much of
the Constitution, that would like to change America into a socialistic
state?”10 To Rush Limbaugh, Emanuel was “talking about agenda
items of the Democrat Party… He’s talking about himself, his party,
the Democrat Party and their agenda. He’s not talking about you.”11
These and other talking heads and conservative politicians united
together in asserting that such an audacious strategy is relegated
only to the “Chicago-style” politics of the progressive left. Though
uncharacteristically frank, Emanuel’s acknowledgment should not
come as a shock, nor should it be seen as something belonging only
to one political group. As this book will explain, individuals exploiting
crises—whether spontaneous or manufactured—is a commonplace
occurrence. As the sociologist David Altheide has explained, “Fear
does not just happen; it is socially constructed and then manipulated
by those who seek to benefit.”12
Who stands to gain from manipulating the masses through fear?
Many businessmen exploit fear in markets to increase profits and
drive competitors into the ground. Some religious leaders find fear
a useful tool to encourage submission and loyalty. War profiteers
increase their bottom line when politicians exaggerate threats to
security. Even domineering spouses or playground bullies rely upon
the fear of their victims to gain control. In short, anybody seeking
power over another person finds fear a useful tool, and it is for that
very reason that politicians stand to gain through its use.
Because fear is so universal, and because it is so often used by
power-seeking individuals in government, those who oppose the
state’s interference in their lives must recognize, understand, and
counteract it. To the extent that people allow their fears to affect their
political opinions and corresponding actions, they will increasingly
enable the very people who exploit that state of fear to gain control.
Freedom shrinks with each new crisis exploited by the ruling class.
Any person interested in preserving freedom must rationally study
the issues on their merits. More importantly, we must persuade others
to recognize the pattern of fear that pervades politics, whether in the
policies themselves or in the arguments used to justify them.
Manufactured fear is a societal plague, and there have been
widespread casualties. We need an antidote, since few have been
properly inoculated against its devastating impact. The intent of this
book is to offer the needed immunization—helping you, the reader,
to recognize and reject fear so you can become free.
NOTES
1. Letter to M. Mazzei, Minerva (New York: 1791).
2. Joseph M. Lynch, Negotiating the Constitution: The Earliest Debates Over
Original Intent (Ithaca: Cornell University, 1999), 177.
3. Edwin Williams, ed., The Book of the Constitution (New York: Peter Hill,
1833), 72.
4. House of Representatives, Volume of Speeches Delivered in Congress, 1840
(Washington: Globe Office, 1840).
5. Zechariah Chafee, Jr., Freedom of Speech in War Times (Washington:
Government Printing Office, 1919), 16.
6. David McCullough, John Adams (New York: Simon & Schuster, 2001), 505.
7. George A. Peek, Jr., ed., The Political Writings of John Adams:
Representative Selections (Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company,
Inc., 2003), 85.
8. James Prior, ed., The Works of The Right Honorable Edmund Burke, vol. 1
(London: Bell & Sons, 1886), 88.
9. “Obama, Assembling Team, Turns to the Economy,” New York Times,
November 7, 2008, http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/07/us/
politics/07obama.html.
10. “Glenn Beck – Emanuel: ‘You never want a serious crisis to go to
waste’,” GlennBeck.com, November 21, 2008, http://www.glennbeck.
com/content/articles/article/198/18490?sid=198&elid=18490&PA
GEN_5=410.
11. “Set Americans Free, Democrats! Follow the Wal-Mart Example,”
RushLimbaugh.com, Nov. 21, 2008, http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/
daily/2008/11/21/set_americans_free_democrats_follow_the_wal_
mart_example.
12. D.L. Altheide, Creating Fear: News and the Construction of Crisis (New
York: Aldine De Gruyter), 24.
10  |  CONNOR BOYACK

KEEP READING?
Purchase the paperback or download
the e-book at Amazon.com!