main-image

Competing Narratives of Danger in America

Most everyone agrees that the United States is in trouble. Like everything else, however, we don’t agree on what that danger entails.

If there’s one thing Americans agree on today, it’s that things aren’t looking good. The sense of worry and alarm is palpable—from the front pages of our news sources to angsty conversations around dinner tables everywhere.   

At certain points in our history, Americans have united around a general appreciation of certain threats:  Nazism in the 1940s, Al Qaeda in the 2000s—and, of course, King George’s tyranny all the way back to our founding (yes, in 1776). At other times throughout this same history, of course, we’ve had profound disagreements on what constitutes the great threats and dangers the nation faces—the most prominent example being the Civil War itself.    

The contrasts between competing stories of threat being told in America today are striking, with different priorities for attention, different specified solutions, and different questions that preoccupy us.  

Are threats to our country primarily coming from actions on the political right, the political left, or a combination of the two? Where you stand—and what narrative you adopt—shapes a lot about how you see this moment, and what you think needs to happen next. 

Story #1. Republican Aspirations as the Great Threat.  The first narrative portrays the actions and aspirations of leadership on the political right—in the White House, Congress, and at the Supreme Court—as the most significant threat right now to America (and not in the usual ways Democrats have always warned of Republican dangers). The nature of warnings these days is much more potent—with the “Trump-Pence regime” accused of being a danger to the foundations of democracy itself. 

The “Trump-Pence regime” is accused of being a danger to the foundations of democracy itself.

Some have increasingly argued that aspects of President Trump’s administration demonstrate a kind of totalitarian state in embryowith prospects of his reelection often discussed as an existential threat to democracy itself.  

Others who may perhaps see these fears as inflated point to the policies he has pursued (and not pursued) as what constitutes the real threat. According to the respected Survey of American Public Opinion and U.S. Foreign Policy released earlier this month by the Chicago Council, Democrats are most concerned about the COVID-19 pandemic (87% seeing it as a critical threat) and climate change (75%), followed by societal issues such as racial inequality (73%) and economic inequality (67%). 69% of Democrats are also concerned with foreign interference in US elections.  

Each one of these top concerns has been minimized or re-prioritized in this current administration—which also plays into why Republican leadership is seen as so much of a threat by one part of America right now. Between 2014 and 2016 according to Pew Research, the percentage of Democrats saying the the Republican Party’s policies “are so misguided that they threaten the nation’s well-being” rose to 41% (a 10% increase in just two years).

How much higher has that number risen in the last four years?

Those who embrace this narrative of Right Threat are generally supporting the Biden-Harris candidacy firmly. From this perspective, standing up to the political right in any way possible is the crucial pathway to greater security and prosperity as a society.  

Story #2. Democrat Aspirations as the Great Threat.  The second narrative portrays the actions and aspirations of leaders on the political left—in Congress, previously leading the White House, and currently aspiring to do so again—as the most significant threat to America right now. Compared with past warnings of Republicans about Democrats, the nature of these warnings are likewise more potent— with the ascendant social justice efforts portrayed as a Marxist assault on the foundations of democracy itself.  

Although former Vice President Joe Biden is most often characterized as center-right, with bipartisan-instincts, this narrative insists he will be a “puppet” or “trojan horse” to a much more radical agenda to enact a left-ward transformation of America.  Although Biden has condemned the looting and riots, this narrative suggests that his concern is disingenuous—and that, at heart, he supports the revolutionary aspirations of agitators in the streets.   

On a more specific level, the political right also sees the central threats facing the country very differently.  For instance, in the same Chicago Council Survey, neither COVID-19 nor climate change make it into the top 7 concerns for Republicans—who instead emphasize external threats from the development of China as a world power (67%), international terrorism (62%), and Iran’s nuclear program (54%) as critical threats—along with immigrants and refugees coming into the country (61%).   

This is a striking contrast to surveys of Democrats—who, for instance, don’t even mention China in their top seven. 

Overall, between 2014 and 2016 according to Pew Research, the percentage of Republicans saying the the Democratic Party’s policies “are so misguided that they threaten the nation’s well-being” rose to 45% (an 8% increase in just two years).

Those who embrace this narrative of Left Threat are generally supporting the Trump-Pence candidacy firmly.  Standing up to the political left in any way possible is the crucial pathway to greater security and prosperity as a society—with considerations about eroding civility or social trust cast as insignificant compared with the threat of progressives gaining more political power.    

Story #3. Mutual Hostility Across Differences as the Great Threat.  A third narrative of threat does not deny the significance of concerns raised about particular policy agendas on either the left or the right, but does not see these as the central and overriding threat facing the nation. 

Specific policy positions are no longer of primary importance

Instead, it is the poisonously suspicious-and-accusatory way of interacting together as Americans that is of greatest concern in this view.  In the same survey mentioned above, a third group of people less affiliated with either major political party identify domestic political polarization as a top threat, second only to the pandemic (with a mixture of where they place the other threats identified on the left and right). By comparison, Democrats place national divisions at No. 7, and Republicans omit it from their top seven.

Exemplifying this third narrative, Susan Rice wrote recently, “I have long viewed domestic division as our greatest national security vulnerability. Political polarization is a ‘force multiplier’ that worsens other threats and cripples our ability to combat them.”

Those who embrace this narrative of threat are inclined to make decisions in this election for very different reasons than partisans on either side. Even more than the “what” of specific policy positions (which usually take priority importance), this group tends to see the “how” of general attitudes and mindsets towards the campaigns, the country and politics itself as crucial, and even decisive.     

None of these other policy issues conservatives (or liberals) care about will matter, these people argue, if the United States dissolves into chaos. Since our system depends on basic trust between human beings—and for our institutions—that becomes the central, overriding issue in the election. 

As David Brooks said in late September, “Our system depends on the good will of the players involved. And if that good will isn’t there, then [beware] the spiral of accusation, animosity, and enmity.” A week later, Brooks added this caution, “When people in a church lose faith or trust in God, the church collapses. When people in a society lose faith or trust in their institutions and in each other, the nation collapses.”

Averting that collapse—and preserving our system as a whole—is the central preoccupation of those holding this third narrative.

These are, of course, not naïve fears. A new YouGov poll of 1,999 registered voters found that 56% of respondents agree on some level that America will see an increase in violence as a result of the election.  The poll also confirmed the rising distrust in election results nationally, with nearly half (47%) disagreeing that the election “is likely to be fair and honest.”

These are remarkable statistics—and clearly not reassuring to anyone.  But as illustrated above, where exactly you see this cancerous cynicism in the catalog of threats varies widely. 

Is it our fraying trust and confidence in each other as Americans that present our greatest danger? Or is it those rascal Republicans or those lawless liberals that constitute our gravest threat?  

How you answer that question says a lot about how you’ll vote and how you’ll respond to the election as a whole.

While the Third Narrative folks are signing petitions like “What We Will Do to Hold America Together” and praying for a peaceful transfer of power, it’s disturbingly unclear to what extent hard-core adherents of either of the more dominant narratives feel the same concern—at least compared with the threat of Another Four Years of Those Despicable Souls in Power (Again). 

And that’s precisely why, from this third perspective, we’re in such a pickle.

About the author

Jacob Z. Hess

Jacob Hess is a contributing editor at Deseret News and publishes longer-form pieces at PublishPeace.net. He co-authored "You're Not as Crazy as I Thought, But You're Still Wrong" and “The Power of Stillness: Mindful Living for Latter-day Saints.” He has a Ph.D. in clinical-community psychology from the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign. Jacob is a staff writer and Latter-day Saint Voices editor at Deseret News.
On Key

You Might Also Like

The Ordinary Saint’s Guide to Under the Banner of Heaven

In an age that claims to value “own voices” media, it is sad that Under the Banner of Heaven is probably going to be the biggest story that the public sees about members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints this year or this decade. While the tale it tells is based on an actual occurrence and about some actual problems within the broader movement of people hearkening back to Joseph Smith, one thing that can’t be said for either the book or the show was that they were written by a member of our community. The producer may have “grown up” as a Latter-day Saint, but he left the faith before he was an adult. If you’ve never had the experience of holding a calling, making temple covenants, or negotiating the relationships that make up a ward (Latter-day Saint congregation), are you really the best person to interpret our community? So I’m stepping in to offer my perspective. I am not a historian or theologian. So, though I try to be informed about the difficult parts of our religion’s past, I can only give you the perspective of what an average member would know or believe about these situations. I undoubtedly will get some of the nuances wrong. This will not be the best place if you’re looking for information about the historical accuracy of the show. (Consider checking FAIR’s guide or Book of Mormon Central.) However, I am an active participant in the larger Latter-day Saint literary community. I’ve written essays about my own life as a woman in the Church and fictional stories about others. I studied Latter-day Saint literature in college and continue reading contemporary Latter-day Saint literature. I am on the board of the Association for Mormon Letters, an organization that promotes literature written by, for, or about those who tie back to the prophet Joseph (including members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, but not exclusive to our denomination). So you might say I have some experience with portrayals of the Latter-day Saints and separate fundamentalist communities. The purpose of this series of recaps is two-fold. First, I want to summarize the series for ordinary Latter-day Saints who don’t intend to watch it so they won’t be surprised around the metaphorical watercooler this week. Second, I will catalog the series as it compares to Latter-day Saint literature more broadly. As a writer, reader, and advocate of Latter-day Saint literature, this is my home turf. I am interested to see where the show gets things right and wrong. Granted, my experience isn’t the experience of every member; like any community, Latter-day Saints are not a monolith. But I will compare the show to my personal knowledge of our community and talk about what sticks out. Without further ado, here are my impressions of the first two episodes of Under the Banner of Heaven. Episode 1, “When God Was Love”  Summary—The episode opens with Detective Pyre being called away from his family’s Pioneer Day celebrations to visit a crime scene. At an ordinary suburban house, he finds a scene of chaos with a mother (Brenda Lafferty) and her 15-month-old daughter (Erica) murdered in a gruesome way. (Luckily, we are only shown large quantities of blood on the floor and walls; the show shies away from showing the bodies, though we will get hints through dialogue about the exact method of killing.) Soon the husband (Allen Lafferty) is taken into custody, his clothes soaked in his wife’s blood. The killer claims that his wife was murdered by men with beards like “Mormon prophets” and continually ties his wife’s murder back to early church history stories, particularly Joseph and Emma marrying against her father’s will. We then get a flashback to a young Brenda. She is an energetic and ambitious young woman who transfers to BYU after being tired of “holding girl’s hair back while they puked” at her party school in Idaho. Allen introduces Brenda to his family at a large family dinner. His brothers seem both strangely attracted to her and judgmental of her for her ambition and less strict faith (caffeinated soda is mentioned). The Lafferty family band together to clear a neighbor’s land to prevent it from being seized by the federal government to build a highway. In the present, Detective Pyre’s partner Bill visits Allen’s brother Robin’s home and finds the house abandoned and papers burning. They arrest Robin after a chase through a motel. This episode depicts the First Vision. It shows Joseph going to the woods to pray and a light shining down on him. The script draws parallels between Joseph’s prayer and Robin’s prayer in the woods before he is caught by the police, which doesn’t really make much sense except that they are both kneeling in a natural setting. We also get a scene of Joseph and Emma discussing whether to marry against her father’s wishes. The show tries to make a big deal of them choosing between “God’s will” and her father’s authority, implying that the problem is that they can justify almost anything as God’s will. I found this assertion pretty strange, given that Joseph and Emma were hardly the first couple to marry against a parent’s wishes. It seems a thin justification on which to hang a condemnation of trusting God. Shibboleths—It’s apparent that the showrunners have made an effort to try to include jargon of Latter-day Saints in the dialogue. Sometimes this works: the Pyre family prayer scene feels exactly like the ones that take place in my family. Others make it apparent that the writers are not members of the community. While we do refer to God as Heavenly Father, particularly in prayer, we don’t use this term exclusively like the characters in the show. I regularly hear members refer to him as “God” or “the Lord,” and a brief search of the church’s 1980’s general conference talks shows that this isn’t a new innovation. While there is

Subscribe To Our Weekly Newsletter

Stay up to date on the intersection of faith in the public square.

You have Successfully Subscribed!