I got a call from a relative of mine a while ago.  She was angry and scared about a letter she had been sent from a nonprofit advocacy organization.  The letter left her with the impression that a law might pass that would take away her legal rights.  “What is going on?” she asked me in a bewildered voice.   

I asked her for the bill’s number and looked it up.  Sure enough, one Congressman had introduced the extremist legislation.  But did that mean she should be scared?  I looked at the number of co-sponsors the bill had:  none.  I looked at its language: radical, to the point of being legally laughable.  I checked the Congressman’s Committee assignments and seniority: he had little power, and had no hope of getting his party’s leaders to allow his bill to the House floor for a vote.  This bill could never become law.   

So why was it written?  Why would someone go through the trouble of assigning staff to draft legislative language, submit it to public scrutiny in Congress, and advertise the achievement to their constituents – all for a bill they should know would never be debated, let alone pass?   

The answer is that there is a market for it.   

When a politician takes a radical stand on an issue, he attracts attention.  Attention yields votes and campaign contributions. And radical pols aren’t the only ones who benefit.  Groups who oppose them benefit as well – by highlighting the legislation in fundraising letters that they send to people who will support the group to “stop” the threat.  Both sides benefit from arms race-like buildup of anger – over a threat that is not real. 

Take the example of Joe Wilson.  Congressman Wilson is now famous for shouting “You lie!” at President Obama on the floor of the House of Representatives when the President told Congress that illegal immigrants would not be covered by his health care reform subsidies during a speech. 

Wilson later apologized for his behavior, but he went on to raise over a million dollars for his re-election campaign in a matter of days – mostly from people who supported his outburst.  And, here’s the catch – so did his challenger in the next campaign, Rob Miller.  Both sides have raised over $1 million each and counting. 

Will any government money be given to illegal immigrants in the current viable versions of health care reform?  Well, no.  But few even remember that this issue prompted the outburst in the first place.   

But the extreme-behavior-begets-attention-begets-money cycle is just a means to an end, some argue.  Both the politician and the group that oppose her might add value to the political debate in other ways – they might contribute real policy solutions while in Congress, they say.  That might be true.   

But I think the long-term price is too high.  When voters like my relative are used in an emotional tug-of-war between political extremes, they get tired.  When they are asked to waste their worry on subjects the fire-stokers know Washington will not act upon, they lose their faith.  And when they spend their time listening to radicals on each side of an issue, they lose their perspective. 

I spend a great deal of my time talking politics with all kinds of people from across the country who hold wildly different opinions – voters, politicians, my clients, my very politically diverse, very opinionated family. 

Over the past several years, I’ve noticed that people of all political persuasions are increasingly willing to retreat to their corners and demonize each other.  They watch “their” cable news channel, they get their facts from “their” advocacy groups, they blame the “other side” for just not getting it.

All sides do their best to advocate their point of view.  That is part of how democracy works. Any time someone pushes their side of a case, they employ persuasive tools meant to convince.  (I’ve worked in this business for two decades, and I am no exception). 

In my opinion, there is a line one must not cross.  Twisting facts to appear to be something they are not is deceptive.  And pushing people to fear something one knows has no chance of harming them for political gain is exploitive.  Our nation has enough challenges to overcome without creating phantom ones for our own benefit.

Catherine McCullough is an attorney lobbyist who has worked in Washington politics for nineteen years.