The Role of Fear in Shaping American Politics

How fear drives American politics | David Rothkopf | TED Talks

AI-generated summary and notes. Check quotations, numbers, and important claims against the source video. Captions may contain errors.

Watch the source video on YouTube

Estimated reading time: 22 minutes for the text on this page.

Summary

In this TED Talk, David Rothkopf explores the profound impact of fear on American politics and decision-making. He reflects on how fear has historically led to both constructive and destructive responses, citing examples from the Cold War and post-9/11 era. Rothkopf argues that the disproportionate responses to threats have led to a creativity crisis in politics, with groupthink and reactive decision-making prevalent in Washington. He highlights the challenges posed by technological advancements and the need for a renewed dialogue between science, technology, and government to address fundamental issues such as internet access, privacy, and security. Ultimately, he calls for innovative thinking and collaboration to navigate the transformational trends reshaping society.

Highlights

Fear can be both a driver of constructive progress and destructive paranoia. 😨
The response to 9/11 involved sweeping changes and enormous costs, yet led to more instability. ✈️
Political discourse is plagued by dysfunction and a lack of creativity. 🧠
Access to technology is reshaping global dynamics, presenting new security and privacy challenges. 🤝
The lack of dialogue between government, science, and technology hampers progress. 🌐
Forums like TED are crucial for fostering discussions that guide future policy. 🎤

Key Takeaways

Fear has historically driven both progress and paranoia in American politics. 😨
Post-9/11 responses were disproportionately extreme, leading to a restructured national security landscape. ✈️
We're in a creativity crisis; bold new ideas are scarce due to heightened political venom and groupthink. 🧠
Technological shifts demand a new partnership between science, technology, and government. 🤝
Philosophical questions about rights to internet and electricity access remain largely unexplored. 🌐
TED Talks and similar forums are vital for questioning and shaping future policies. 🎤

Overview

Fear has been a catalyst for both remarkable achievements and catastrophic overreactions in American history. From the anxiety of the Cold War to the drastic remodel of national security post-9/11, fear has shaped the nation's responses in multifaceted ways. Rothkopf notes that while the Cold War threat led to innovations like the space program and the internet, the 9/11 attacks resulted in heightened surveillance and military interventions that were arguably disproportionate given the extent of the threat.

Rothkopf argues that American politics is currently suffering from a creativity crisis caused by groupthink and an us-versus-them mentality. This has led to a reactive environment where innovative ideas are scarce, and policymakers are often more concerned with navigating political venom than with crafting forward-thinking strategies. As technology rapidly evolves, global powers are challenged with issues of cybersecurity and internet sovereignty, complications that require comprehensive new doctrines and cooperation across sectors.

Highlighting the importance of revisiting the dialogue between science, technology, and policy, Rothkopf underscores the potential in collaborative forums like TED. He calls for addressing fundamental philosophical issues, such as whether internet access should be considered a basic right, and stresses that without proactive collaboration, society risks missing the opportunities presented by transformative global trends. Bringing together diverse thinkers can lead to the critical questions and solutions necessary for future progress.

Chapters

00:00 - 00:30: Introduction to Fear and Anxiety This chapter, titled 'Introduction to Fear and Anxiety,' discusses the concepts of fear and anxiety. The speaker aims to explore the cost and nature of fear, particularly in the context of transitioning out of an 'age of fear.' The speaker assures the audience of their understanding and expertise on the subject.
00:30 - 01:00: Childhood Fears and Historical Context The speaker, a Jewish individual from New Jersey, humorously reflects on their early development in worrying, stating that they could worry before they could walk. This humorous reflection invites laughter and applause from the audience. Beyond personal anecdotes, the speaker highlights the genuine fears present during their childhood. They recall being trained as a young child to use their coats as protection in the event of a global thermonuclear war, illustrating the intense fear and anxiety of the historical context they grew up in.
01:00 - 01:30: Productive Responses to Fear The chapter titled 'Productive Responses to Fear' discusses the innate awareness that even a young child might have regarding the impracticality of certain fears, using the example of global thermonuclear war as a significant concern. Despite the overarching fear of such a devastating event over a 50-year period, the chapter highlights the positive and constructive actions taken by society and government in response to such threats. Specifically, it mentions the creation of the space program as a proactive and productive response to the fear of nuclear conflict.
01:30 - 02:30: Reactions to 9/11 This chapter discusses the reactions to the events of September 11, 2001. It highlights how fear can lead to both constructive and unconstructive responses. Constructive examples include the building of infrastructure like highways and technological advancements such as the Internet. However, 9/11 itself was a result of 19 individuals hijacking airplanes and causing destruction, which serves as an example of an unconstructive and tragic response driven by fear.
02:30 - 03:30: Groupthink in Political Decision-Making The chapter discusses the concept of groupthink in political decision-making, specifically analyzing how governments, like the United States, responded to threats in a disproportionate manner. It indicates that national security was restructured significantly following certain attacks, even when intelligence reports suggested that the magnitude of the threat was limited at that time.
03:30 - 04:30: Impact of Technological Changes The chapter discusses the extensive impact of the technological changes post-September 11, 2001. It highlights that despite the limited number of core Al-Qaeda members and terrorists, the United States undertook significant measures to revamp its national security. This included restructuring the national security apparatus dramatically, engaging in two wars, and expending trillions of dollars. These actions underscore the profound influence technology and security concerns have had on national and global decisions.
04:30 - 05:30: Cyber Warfare and Modern Conflicts The chapter titled 'Cyber Warfare and Modern Conflicts' addresses the drastic measures taken in response to security threats, highlighting the suspension of values, violations of international law, and the adoption of torture. It discusses the paranoia that arose post-9/11 where everyone was viewed as a potential threat, leading to extensive surveillance programs. These programs targeted the communications of entire nations, affecting hundreds of millions, regardless of whether they were allies.
05:30 - 06:30: The Role of Mobile Technology The chapter discusses the impact of mobile technology on society, particularly in relation to terrorism and regional instability. The argument is made that despite advancements and efforts over the past 15 years, the threat from terrorism has increased, with more attacks and casualties reported. This is supported by data from the U.S. State Department. The chapter emphasizes that the areas from which these attacks originate have never been as unstable as they are today, suggesting past strategies may not have been successful.
06:30 - 07:30: Internet Access as a Fundamental Right The chapter titled 'Internet Access as a Fundamental Right' delves into the critical question of where did society deviate from ensuring basic rights. The speaker reflects on the current state of politics in Washington, describing it as dysfunctional, characterized by constant political bickering and hostility. Despite these political skirmishes, the speaker identifies larger, more pressing issues that transcend political dysfunction, suggesting that these issues are preventing the United States - the richest and most powerful nation in the world - from achieving essential goals. While not explicitly stated in this section, the implication is that ensuring internet access as a fundamental right is one of these essential goals or broader issues.
07:30 - 08:30: Need for Public-Private Partnerships The chapter discusses the significant dangers posed by stagnation, particularly in the context of creativity and progress. It suggests that this stagnation might be more threatening than conventional security threats. The chapter highlights that in political centers like Washington and within think tanks, there is a noticeable 'creativity crisis' where bold and innovative ideas are scarce. This lack of innovation is a critical issue, limiting progress and effective problem-solving.
08:30 - 09:30: Challenges in Setting Future Policies This chapter discusses the challenges in formulating future policies, highlighting issues such as attacks on social media platforms like Twitter that deter individuals from accepting government positions. It points out the reactive nature to political debate venom, resulting in governments with an 'us-versus-them' mentality and decision-making by small groups. This environment fosters groupthink, where differing views are perceived as threats, posing significant risks.
09:30 - 10:00: Conclusion and Call to Action This chapter highlights the challenge of being reactive to news cycles in governmental processes, which compromises their ability to do forward-thinking strategy and foresight. It draws a parallel to the 9/11 crisis, suggesting that current governance continues to be misguided, as its focus remains outdated, despite visible transformational trends on the horizon. The chapter calls for a shift in perspective to better anticipate and navigate future challenges.

How fear drives American politics | David Rothkopf | TED Talks Transcription

00:00 - 00:30 What I'd like to do is talk to you a little bit about fear and the cost of fear and the age of fear from which we are now emerging. I would like you to feel comfortable with my doing that by letting you know that I know something about fear and anxiety.
00:30 - 01:00 I'm a Jewish guy from New Jersey. (Laughter) I could worry before I could walk. (Laughter) Please, applaud that. (Applause) Thank you. But I also grew up in a time where there was something to fear. We were brought out in the hall when I was a little kid and taught how to put our coats over our heads to protect us from global thermonuclear war.
01:00 - 01:30 Now even my seven-year-old brain knew that wasn't going to work. But I also knew that global thermonuclear war was something to be concerned with. And yet, despite the fact that we lived for 50 years with the threat of such a war, the response of our government and of our society was to do wonderful things. We created the space program in response to that.
01:30 - 02:00 We built our highway system in response to that. We created the Internet in response to that. So sometimes fear can produce a constructive response. But sometimes it can produce an un-constructive response. On September 11, 2001, 19 guys took over four airplanes and flew them into a couple of buildings. They exacted a horrible toll.
02:00 - 02:30 It is not for us to minimize what that toll was. But the response that we had was clearly disproportionate -- disproportionate to the point of verging on the unhinged. We rearranged the national security apparatus of the United States and of many governments to address a threat that, at the time that those attacks took place, was quite limited. In fact, according to our intelligence services,
02:30 - 03:00 on September 11, 2001, there were 100 members of core Al-Qaeda. There were just a few thousand terrorists. They posed an existential threat to no one. But we rearranged our entire national security apparatus in the most sweeping way since the end of the Second World War. We launched two wars. We spent trillions of dollars.
03:00 - 03:30 We suspended our values. We violated international law. We embraced torture. We embraced the idea that if these 19 guys could do this, anybody could do it. And therefore, for the first time in history, we were seeing everybody as a threat. And what was the result of that? Surveillance programs that listened in on the emails and phone calls of entire countries -- hundreds of millions of people -- setting aside whether those countries were our allies,
03:30 - 04:00 setting aside what our interests were. I would argue that 15 years later, since today there are more terrorists, more terrorist attacks, more terrorist casualties -- this by the count of the U.S. State Department -- since today the region from which those attacks emanate is more unstable than at any time in its history, since the Flood, perhaps, we have not succeeded in our response.
04:00 - 04:30 Now you have to ask, where did we go wrong? What did we do? What was the mistake that was made? And you might say, well look, Washington is a dysfunctional place. There are political food fights. We've turned our discourse into a cage match. And that's true. But there are bigger problems, believe it or not, than that dysfunction, even though I would argue that dysfunction that makes it impossible to get anything done in the richest and most powerful country in the world
04:30 - 05:00 is far more dangerous than anything that a group like ISIS could do, because it stops us in our tracks and it keeps us from progress. But there are other problems. And the other problems came from the fact that in Washington and in many capitals right now, we're in a creativity crisis. In Washington, in think tanks, where people are supposed to be thinking of new ideas, you don't get bold new ideas, because if you offer up a bold new idea,
05:00 - 05:30 not only are you attacked on Twitter, but you will not get confirmed in a government job. Because we are reactive to the heightened venom of the political debate, you get governments that have an us-versus-them mentality, tiny groups of people making decisions. When you sit in a room with a small group of people making decisions, what do you get? You get groupthink. Everybody has the same worldview, and any view from outside of the group is seen as a threat. That's a danger.
05:30 - 06:00 You also have processes that become reactive to news cycles. And so the parts of the U.S. government that do foresight, that look forward, that do strategy -- the parts in other governments that do this -- can't do it, because they're reacting to the news cycle. And so we're not looking ahead. On 9/11, we had a crisis because we were looking the wrong way. Today we have a crisis because, because of 9/11, we are still looking in the wrong direction, and we know because we see transformational trends on the horizon
06:00 - 06:30 that are far more important than what we saw on 9/11; far more important than the threat posed by these terrorists; far more important even than the instability that we've got in some areas of the world that are racked by instability today. In fact, the things that we are seeing in those parts of the world may be symptoms. They may be a reaction to bigger trends.
06:30 - 07:00 And if we are treating the symptom and ignoring the bigger trend, then we've got far bigger problems to deal with. And so what are those trends? Well, to a group like you, the trends are apparent. We are living at a moment in which the very fabric of human society is being rewoven. If you saw the cover of The Economist a couple of days ago --
07:00 - 07:30 it said that 80 percent of the people on the planet, by the year 2020, would have a smartphone. They would have a small computer connected to the Internet in their pocket. In most of Africa, the cell phone penetration rate is 80 percent. We passed the point last October when there were more mobile cellular devices, SIM cards, out in the world than there were people. We are within years of a profound moment in our history,
07:30 - 08:00 when effectively every single human being on the planet is going to be part of a man-made system for the first time, able to touch anyone else -- touch them for good, touch them for ill. And the changes associated with that are changing the very nature of every aspect of governance and life on the planet in ways that our leaders ought to be thinking about,
08:00 - 08:30 when they're thinking about these immediate threats. On the security side, we've come out of a Cold War in which it was too costly to fight a nuclear war, and so we didn't, to a period that I call Cool War, cyber war, where the costs of conflict are actually so low, that we may never stop. We may enter a period of constant warfare, and we know this because we've been in it for several years. And yet, we don't have the basic doctrines to guide us in this regard.
08:30 - 09:00 We don't have the basic ideas formulated. If someone attacks us with a cyber attack, do have the ability to respond with a kinetic attack? We don't know. If somebody launches a cyber attack, how do we deter them? When China launched a series of cyber attacks, what did the U.S. government do? It said, we're going to indict a few of these Chinese guys, who are never coming to America. They're never going to be anywhere near a law enforcement officer
09:00 - 09:30 who's going to take them into custody. It's a gesture -- it's not a deterrent. Special forces operators out there in the field today discover that small groups of insurgents with cell phones have access to satellite imagery that once only superpowers had. In fact, if you've got a cell phone, you've got access to power that a superpower didn't have, and would have highly classified 10 years ago.
09:30 - 10:00 In my cell phone, I have an app that tells me where every plane in the world is, and its altitude, and its speed, and what kind of aircraft it is, and where it's going and where it's landing. They have apps that allow them to know what their adversary is about to do. They're using these tools in new ways. When a cafe in Sydney was taken over by a terrorist, he went in with a rifle...
10:00 - 10:30 and an iPad. And the weapon was the iPad. Because he captured people, he terrorized them, he pointed the iPad at them, and then he took the video and he put it on the Internet, and he took over the world's media. But it doesn't just affect the security side. The relations between great powers -- we thought we were past the bipolar era. We thought we were in a unipolar world, where all the big issues were resolved.
10:30 - 11:00 Remember? It was the end of history. But we're not. We're now seeing that our basic assumptions about the Internet -- that it was going to connect us, weave society together -- are not necessarily true. In countries like China, you have the Great Firewall of China. You've got countries saying no, if the Internet happens within our borders we control it within our borders. We control the content. We are going to control our security. We are going to manage that Internet. We are going to say what can be on it.
11:00 - 11:30 We're going to set a different set of rules. Now you might think, well, that's just China. But it's not just China. It's China, India, Russia. It's Saudi Arabia, it's Singapore, it's Brazil. After the NSA scandal, the Russians, the Chinese, the Indians, the Brazilians, they said, let's create a new Internet backbone, because we can't be dependent on this other one. And so all of a sudden, what do you have? You have a new bipolar world in which cyber-internationalism,
11:30 - 12:00 our belief, is challenged by cyber-nationalism, another belief. We are seeing these changes everywhere we look. We are seeing the advent of mobile money. It's happening in the places you wouldn't expect. It's happening in Kenya and Tanzania, where millions of people who haven't had access to financial services now conduct all those services on their phones. There are 2.5 million people who don't have financial service access that are going to get it soon.
12:00 - 12:30 A billion of them are going to have the ability to access it on their cell phone soon. It's not just going to give them the ability to bank. It's going to change what monetary policy is. It's going to change what money is. Education is changing in the same way. Healthcare is changing in the same way. How government services are delivered is changing in the same way. And yet, in Washington, we are debating whether to call the terrorist group that has taken over Syria and Iraq
12:30 - 13:00 ISIS or ISIL or Islamic State. We are trying to determine how much we want to give in a negotiation with the Iranians on a nuclear deal which deals with the technologies of 50 years ago, when in fact, we know that the Iranians right now are engaged in cyber war with us and we're ignoring it, partially because businesses are not willing
13:00 - 13:30 to talk about the attacks that are being waged on them. And that gets us to another breakdown that's crucial, and another breakdown that couldn't be more important to a group like this, because the growth of America and real American national security and all of the things that drove progress even during the Cold War, was a public-private partnership between science, technology and government
13:30 - 14:00 that began when Thomas Jefferson sat alone in his laboratory inventing new things. But it was the canals and railroads and telegraph; it was radar and the Internet. It was Tang, the breakfast drink -- probably not the most important of those developments. But what you had was a partnership and a dialogue, and the dialogue has broken down. It's broken down because in Washington, less government is considered more. It's broken down because there is, believe it or not,
14:00 - 14:30 in Washington, a war on science -- despite the fact that in all of human history, every time anyone has waged a war on science, science has won. (Applause) But we have a government that doesn't want to listen, that doesn't have people at the highest levels that understand this. In the nuclear age, when there were people in senior national security jobs, they were expected to speak throw-weight.
14:30 - 15:00 They were expected to know the lingo, the vocabulary. If you went to the highest level of the U.S. government now and said, "Talk to me about cyber, about neuroscience, about the things that are going to change the world of tomorrow," you'd get a blank stare. I know, because when I wrote this book, I talked to 150 people, many from the science and tech side, who felt like they were being shunted off to the kids' table. Meanwhile, on the tech side, we have lots of wonderful people creating wonderful things, but they started in garages and they didn't need the government
15:00 - 15:30 and they don't want the government. Many of them have a political view that's somewhere between libertarian and anarchic: leave me alone. But the world's coming apart. All of a sudden, there are going to be massive regulatory changes and massive issues associated with conflict and massive issues associated with security and privacy. And we haven't even gotten to the next set of issues, which are philosophical issues. If you can't vote, if you can't have a job,
15:30 - 16:00 if you can't bank, if you can't get health care, if you can't be educated without Internet access, is Internet access a fundamental right that should be written into constitutions? If Internet access is a fundamental right, is electricity access for the 1.2 billion who don't have access to electricity a fundamental right? These are fundamental issues. Where are the philosophers? Where's the dialogue? And that brings me to the reason that I'm here.
16:00 - 16:30 I live in Washington. Pity me. (Laughter) The dialogue isn't happening there. These big issues that will change the world, change national security, change economics, create hope, create threats, can only be resolved when you bring together groups of people who understand science and technology back together with government. Both sides need each other. And until we recreate that connection,
16:30 - 17:00 until we do what helped America grow and helped other countries grow, then we are going to grow ever more vulnerable. The risks associated with 9/11 will not be measured in terms of lives lost by terror attacks or buildings destroyed or trillions of dollars spent. They'll be measured in terms of the costs of our distraction from critical issues and our inability to get together
17:00 - 17:30 scientists, technologists, government leaders, at a moment of transformation akin to the beginning of the Renaissance, akin to the beginning of the major transformational eras that have happened on Earth, and start coming up with, if not the right answers, then at least the right questions. We are not there yet, but discussions like this and groups like you are the places where those questions can be formulated and posed.
17:30 - 18:00 And that's why I believe that groups like TED, discussions like this around the planet, are the place where the future of foreign policy, of economic policy, of social policy, of philosophy, will ultimately take place. And that's why it's been a pleasure speaking to you. Thank you very, very much. (Applause)