Existential Threat Rhetoric Plagues US Politics

Experts warn that framing every election as a 'life-or-death' matter is dangerous and counterproductive

Published on Feb. 10, 2026

Got story updates? Submit your updates here. ›

Political analyst David M. Drucker argues that the trend of portraying each election as an 'existential threat' to the country is problematic and has been proven wrong time and again. He cites examples of how power has shifted between Democrats and Republicans without the dire consequences predicted, and warns that this rhetoric inspires extreme actions that undermine traditional governance.

Why it matters

Drucker's analysis highlights how the 'Armageddon politics' mentality has become pervasive in US politics, with both parties engaging in it to drive voter turnout. Experts warn this dynamic is fueling hyperpartisanship, a winner-take-all mentality, and the normalization of increasingly extreme actions that threaten democratic norms.

The details

Drucker points to examples like the 2016 election, where Trump's opponents viewed him as an existential threat, only to see Democrats recapture the House in 2018 and the White House and Senate in 2020. He also cites a recent special election in Texas where Democrats flipped a state senate district, refuting the notion that the country is 'irretrievably lost' when the 'other side' wins. Experts attribute this dynamic to a intersection of hyperpartisanship and a winner-take-all mentality, driven by societal divisions and fears of cultural change.

  • In 2025, while Trump was turning the Department of Justice into his personal team of attorneys, there was a series of off-year elections that happened on schedule, as planned, and Democrats romped.
  • Just this past weekend, in a special election in Texas, the Democrats flipped a state senate district that had been drawn to elect Republicans.

The players

David M. Drucker

A columnist covering politics and policy, a senior writer for The Dispatch, and the author of 'In Trump's Shadow: The Battle for 2024 and the Future of the GOP'.

Paul Sracic

A senior fellow at the Hudson Institute, a conservative think tank in Washington.

Craig J. Calhoun

A social scientist at Arizona State University in Tempe, Arizona.

Jack A. Goldstone

A public policy expert at George Mason University in Fairfax, Virginia.

Got photos? Submit your photos here. ›

What they’re saying

“When political discourse frames the opposition as a mortal threat, it creates a moral imperative to act beyond the bounds of traditional governance. Once these boundaries are breached, the Overton Window shifts, normalizing increasingly extreme actions. Those who warn against such escalation are dismissed as naïve, given what the 'other side' has done, and the cycle of retaliation accelerates.”

— Paul Sracic, Senior Fellow, Hudson Institute (Email exchange with author)

“It's the fear that cosmopolitan elites, with WOKE/diversity-driven ideas, want, as Trump would say, to open the borders, push White Christians to the sidelines, and create a world without morals where people of color, Muslims, (maybe Jews too) and perhaps women are given special rights and privileges. That is a false narrative, of course. But has a grain of truth in Democrats' past policies — and is sufficiently terrifying to lead many ordinary patriotic Americans to treat every election involving Trump as a life-or-death matter.”

— Jack A. Goldstone, Public Policy Expert, George Mason University (Email exchange with author)

What’s next

The judge in the case will decide on Tuesday whether or not to allow Walker Reed Quinn out on bail.

The takeaway

This case highlights growing concerns in the community about repeat offenders released on bail, raising questions about bail reform, public safety on SF streets, and if any special laws to govern autonomous vehicles in residential and commercial areas.