Democrats and liberal commentators have gotten into the habit of responding to President Donald Trump’s rising hyperbolic language and polarizing policy proposals with more alarm. “Democracy is ending,” “he’s a fascist” or “this is the worst thing yet” consistently make headlines and op-eds. But continuously shouting warnings in this way can have a negative effect, making voters feel frustrated and powerless instead of ready to take action. Research in political science indicates that too much high-anxiety speech often works against itself by reducing civic engagement and leaving citizens demoralized rather than empowered.
Instead of relying on panic, Democrats must move toward messaging on calm confidence: seeing real threats while also presenting clear, effective action being undertaken to counter them. Trump should be depicted as a challenge which democracy is more than capable of surviving — and which Democrats are positively and effectively enduring. This shift in approach would be far more accurate and politically advantageous.
When political discourse consistently presents every new crisis as disastrous, voters experience heightened anxiety that ironically leads to disengagement rather than mobilization. According to recent research, frequent exposure to anxiety-inducing political discourse has a propensity to exhaust and demoralize voters. Rather than being inspired to act, citizens are burdened by the fear that the political situation is too dire or inevitable to resist effectively.
This trend amplifies authoritarianism through reinforcing the perception of the strength and imminence of an opponent’s power. Additionally, the experience of continuous fear without open guidance or reassurance discredits overall civic engagement and erodes the confidence of voters in democratic institutions to be able to counter danger.
Successful political communication typically outlines clear solutions and tangible measures rather than simply dramatizing threats or crises. Extensive research shows that when citizens are exposed to political messages based on realistic policies, particular proposals and strategic responses, they become more informed, confident and inspired to engage politically.
This strategy is the opposite of the commonly hysteric rhetoric in left-wing media outlets, where headlines highlight danger without defining tangible solutions. Positive messaging allows citizens to feel empowered and capable, shifting their mindset from despair to action. In addition, focusing on specific institutional guardrails and bipartisan measures that successfully deflect dangers strengthen confidence in democratic institutions, keeping citizens engaged and politically involved even in bad times.
Democrats and progressive media must transition from an alarmist reaction to an assurance-based communications strategy of unambiguous action and institutional toughness. Rather than simply respond with outrage to inflammatory policy proposals, Democrats must highlight specific legal victories already won, such as successful court challenges blocking radical immigration policies. And emphasizing bipartisan resistance to authoritarian actions — such as members of Congress uniting to condemn attacks on democratic institutions — serves to build confidence that democracy remains robust.
Shifting the characterization of Trump and his policies as threats that existing democratic institutions are capable of reacting to, and that Democrats are actively fighting against, sends a message that is more effective and credible, as well as politically enabling.
Such systematic, action-oriented messaging is not a mere theory, it has precedence. In the Watergate scandal, a bipartisan backing for accountability, along with strategized public communication by politicians, maintained the public’s belief in democratic institutions despite the gravity of the crisis. And more recently, legal institutions and a free media defied efforts to upend the election of 2020, showing that American democracy can self-correct when tested. These moments suggest that framing political risk as real but manageable, and emphasizing institutional resilience, not only saves democracy but also fosters public confidence and civic participation.
That said, some scholars and activists argue that a certain degree of democratic panic is not only inevitable, but also necessary — the alarm serves as a wake-up call, drawing public attention to threats that might otherwise be ignored. Indeed, historical movements for civil rights or labor protections often gained traction precisely because urgency was palpable. But panic, while effective in raising awareness, must eventually give way to purposeful strategy. If fear is not paired with a path forward, it can become paralyzing rather than galvanizing. The goal, then, is not to eliminate alarm altogether, but to translate it into action — to let concern fuel clarity rather than chaos.
If Democrats want to counter authoritarian rhetoric effectively, they must abandon the politics of panic. Constant catastrophizing may feel urgent, but it often undermines voter confidence, increases anxiety and gives undue power to the very figures it seeks to oppose. Instead, Democratic leaders and media allies should frame threats as serious but stoppable, and emphasize what is being done to resist them — whether that’s through legal victories, bipartisan coalitions or the durability of democratic norms. By choosing clarity over fear and strength over alarm, Democrats can not only engage voters more effectively but also strengthen the very institutions they seek to protect.
Seth Gabrielson is an Opinion Analyst who writes about the intersection of politics, science and philosophy. He can be reached at semiel@umich.edu.
