
Hysteria Nation
The American public discourse is business and hysteria the business model.
When you search Fox News’ headlines for the term ‘hysteria’, you get plenty of results:
“John Stossel: The absurd hysteria around plastic straws”
“Ann Coulter on Censorship and Russia Hysteria”
“Tucker: Hysteria on the left hits new heights”
“Dr. Sebastian Gorka sounds off about the Helsinki hysteria”
“Earth Day has embraced hysteria and abandoned science”
“Mark Levin on media hysteria over Stormy Daniels”
“Leftists Take Statue Hysteria International”
“Is anti-Trump hysteria hardening his voters’ support?”
Meriam-Webster gives the colloquial use of hysteria as “behavior exhibiting overwhelming or unmanageable fear or emotional excess” and Google Dictionary defines it as “exaggerated or uncontrollable emotion or excitement”. It originally derives from the medical term that was popularized in 1895 by Sigmund Freud and Joseph Breuer in their seminal work “Studies on Hysteria”. The five case studies of ‘hysterics’ in the book were all based on women (including the famous Anna O.) and ever since, hysteria has been closely associated with the female. In 1980, psychiatry abandoned the term, but its colloquial meaning along with its close association with femininity lives on.

It’s probably for that very reason — consciously or not — that the concept is so appealing to the conservatives of Fox News, whose ideal of manliness is likely more John Wayne than Justin Trudeau. It invokes a clear dichotomy based on gender stereotypes and, used in this fashion, basically genders the two political camps according to old-fashioned clichés. On one side your opponent, the effeminate liberal do-gooder, governed by emotions instead of cold rationality. On the other side yourselves, the steely eyed conservatives, guided entirely by rational thinking and never swayed by feelings. Calling out the opposing political camp’s hysteria is effective, because it allows you to position yourself as the steadfast voice of reason calling for calm while at the same time belittling your enemy. Unsurprisingly, another admirer of the term is the shirtless, horseback-riding man in the Kremlin, who likes to bemoan the supposed ‘Russophobic hysteria’ (here’s an example) in the West — its old geostrategic rival, which the Russian propaganda operation loves to paint as decadent and soft, ruined by PC-culture, feminism and rampant homosexuality.
The sexist connotations of the word were on full display last year, when Jason Miller, Trump’s former campaign spokesman, attacked Senator Kamala Harris’ supposed hysteria on a CNN segment with Anderson Cooper. All the senator had done was subject Attorney General Jeff Sessions to a series of tough questions during a meeting of the Senate Intelligence Committee. Another panelist on Anderson Cooper maintained that hysteria was a “neutral” term, but it seems highly doubtful that a male senator’s aggressive interrogation tactics would have run the risk of being described as hysteria.
Despite all this, the concept still offers a valuable way to think about the state of the American public discourse. Because there can be little doubt that the latter is governed by “overwhelming fear and emotional excess”. To illuminate the issue, let’s take a look at some examples. Here is a series of New York Times op-ed headlines from just the last two months.
“Search Your Souls (What’s Left of Them), Republicans”
“Trump’s Road to American Martial Law”
“Trump, Treasonous Traitor”
“What if Trump Did Actually Shoot Someone on Fifth Avenue?”
“The Devil in Steve Bannon”
“Trump Will Have Blood on His Hands”
“Mike Pence, Holy Terror”
Reading these, perhaps Fox News must be forgiven for accusing the left of hysteria. It is worthwhile remembering that this is not the Huffington Post or some leftwing podcast but the American newspaper of record. These are headlines by some of the country’s most reputable commentators. Granted, for liberals there is much to detest in Trump’s style and politics, but the language employed here seems more befitting of the biblical end times than the political reality on the ground.
Before conservatives lean back in their chairs and wash their hands of responsibility, let’s recall the absurd discussion surrounding Obama’s birth certificate. Or anyone remember #Pizzagate? One Edgar Maddison Welsh surely does, because he is currently serving a four-year federal prison sentence for firing shots inside a Washington D.C. restaurant he sincerely believed was the center of a pedophile ring connected to the Clintons. These narratives, to name just two examples, pushed by the right to whip their supporters into a frenzy are completely divorced from reality — but, as the Pizzagate story illustrates, not without their very real victims.
It begs the question: why? Why do highly intelligent New York Times op-ed writers (and, of course, they are far from the only ones) use this extremely hyperbolic and, yes, hysterical language? The answer is simple. They, too, feel the pressure of the views count. The more lurid the headline, the more likely that the reader will engage. In this age, where traditional newspapers and TV channels are battling for survival while having to compete with all sorts of upstart formats from the internet realm, they are driven towards ever more aggressive language and exaggerated emotions. They are driven towards hysteria.

But it is not just the traditional media outlets. They are just adapting. It’s public figures with book deals, podcasters, web radio hosts, TV pundits and others influencing the public discourse. Even individuals on Facebook know: emotions pay better than facts (and if its only in ‘likes’ and ‘hearts’). Thanks to the internet, which has effectively abolished any barriers of entry into the public opinion market, the competition today is so great, that pandering emotions (and the more the better!) is probably key for survival. Hysteria is, indeed, the business model in the public opinion business.
All of this does come, of course, at a price. For now, that price is paid in civility, good governance, democratic norms, the quality of information and international standing.
