Have you seen this before?
- They create a problem.
- The problem creates a reaction.
- If there is enough fear and hysteria people will not only accept the solution that limits their rights but they will actually beg for it.
One definition is that it’s used as a tool to break down traditional beliefs with the objective of replacing them with something new.
The more common definition is commonly summarized as “Problem ? Reaction ? Solution.”
The phrase is often attributed (sometimes loosely or controversially) to Naomi Klein’s Shock Doctrine, and variants of the idea appear in political theory long before that. Regardless of attribution, the pattern itself is observable in U.S. history: a crisis (real, exaggerated, or opportunistically framed) produces public fear, which lowers resistance to legislation that would have been politically impossible beforehand.
For the more serious user, do some Google or AI searches. There is a lot of info on this topic with a variety of definitions and example.
But for this webpage, a big example of “who are They” is governments. You seen this play out daily in the United States and is not a left/right-Democrate/Republican phenomenon. It’s a power-expansion phenomenon.
“They” create a problem that only they can solve, and you and me, give up freedoms in the process. To be fair the Republicans are not off the hook, they know the game but don’t seem to play it as often.
Below are well-documented U.S. examples where this pattern clearly resulted in enacted law. Our wording is concrete and legislative, not rhetorical.
1. 9/11 → Fear of Terrorism → USA PATRIOT Act (2001)
Problem
-
September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks killed nearly 3,000 people.
-
Intelligence failures were heavily emphasized in public discourse.
Reaction
-
Widespread fear of additional imminent attacks.
-
Public demand for “do whatever it takes to stop this from happening again.”
-
Minimal appetite for civil-liberty objections.
Solution (Legislation)
-
USA PATRIOT Act, passed 45 days after 9/11
-
Passed with overwhelming bipartisan support
-
Many members of Congress later admitted they did not read the full bill
Rights & Powers Expanded
-
Warrantless surveillance (roving wiretaps)
-
Bulk collection of metadata
-
National Security Letters with gag orders
-
Reduced judicial oversight of intelligence agencies
Why it fits the model
-
The attacks were real.
-
The scope and permanence of surveillance expansion went far beyond the immediate emergency.
-
Provisions initially sold as “temporary” became normalized.
Notably, later disclosures (Snowden) showed the surveillance apparatus exceeded what the public believed it had approved.
2. Crime Wave Narrative → Public Fear → 1994 Crime Bill
Problem
-
Rising violent crime in the late 1980s and early 1990s
-
Media amplification of extreme cases (e.g., “superpredator” theory)
Reaction
-
Broad fear of urban crime
-
Bipartisan political competition to appear “tough on crime”
-
Public support for harsher penalties
Solution (Legislation)
-
Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994
-
Largest crime bill in U.S. history
Rights & Consequences
-
Expanded mandatory minimum sentences
-
Incentivized states to adopt “three-strikes” laws
-
Massive prison construction funding
-
Militarization of police via federal grants
Why it fits the model
-
Crime was real, but trend data was already peaking
-
Long-term consequences (mass incarceration) were not part of public debate
-
The bill locked in structural changes that persisted long after crime declined
Many of the bill’s original supporters later disavowed its effects—but only decades later.
3. COVID-19 → Public Health Panic → Emergency Powers & Mandates
(This one is more decentralized, but still instructive)
Problem
-
Novel virus with uncertain lethality and transmission
-
Early data gaps and worst-case modeling
Reaction
-
Intense fear driven by uncertainty
-
Public demand for “strong action”
-
Acceptance of extraordinary government control as temporary
Solution (Executive + Legislative Actions)
-
Emergency declarations at federal and state levels
-
Suspension of normal legislative processes
-
Expanded executive authority over:
-
Movement
-
Commerce
-
Assembly
-
Employment mandates
-
Rights Implicated
-
Freedom of movement
-
Freedom of assembly
-
Bodily autonomy (mandates)
-
Due process (business closures without hearings)
Why it fits the model
-
The emergency was real.
-
The duration and normalization of emergency powers exceeded initial promises.
-
Many policies remained even after risk profiles changed.
Courts later struck down some measures, but only after they had already reshaped behavior and precedent.
4. Financial Crisis → Economic Fear → Dodd-Frank & Bailout Regime (2008–2010)
Problem
-
Collapse of major financial institutions
-
Risk of systemic banking failure
Reaction
-
Fear of total economic collapse
-
Urgency framed as “act now or the economy dies”
Solution (Legislation)
-
TARP (Troubled Asset Relief Program)
-
Dodd-Frank Act
Structural Effects
-
Entrenched “too big to fail”
-
Regulatory complexity favoring large institutions
-
Permanent expansion of federal oversight of financial markets
Why it fits the model
-
The crisis justified rapid action
-
Emergency framing limited debate on alternative solutions
-
Long-term market distortions were secondary to immediate stabilization
Important Nuance (This Matters)
A few key clarifications so this doesn’t drift into conspiracy thinking:
-
The problems are usually real
The critique is not “government invents fake crises,” but that crises are leveraged. -
Intent varies
-
Sometimes it’s opportunism
-
Sometimes institutional momentum
-
Sometimes sincere belief that ends justify means
-
-
The pattern is bipartisan
This is not a left/right phenomenon—it’s a power-expansion phenomenon -
Emergency powers rarely fully retract
Temporary measures have a strong tendency to become permanent.
A Useful Mental Test
A simple way to evaluate whether this pattern is at work:
“Would this law have passed without the crisis?”
If the honest answer is no, then fear—not deliberation—was the decisive factor.