If one were inclined to rewrite holy writ for political advantage, perhaps the first thing one might pen is “Be anxious for everything.” No doubt this revision will offend certain Christians comforted by St. Paul’s exhortation to “be anxious for nothing,” but such Christians, generally, do not run for President of the United States. In fact, such a candidacy would be impossible: it simply is not possible to win votes without exploiting anxiety and fear. “Trust in God” will impress few voters as a campaign slogan, but “Fear Everything” has a chance at winning the White House.
Readers may scoff; I invite them to jeer and sneer. But the facts are evident: electoral politics is about fear – and nothing but fear. Yes, we all know the “playing the politics of fear” canard so well it has become a mere cliché, appropriate to the bumper sticker-set rather than the more reflective wing of the body politic. Ironically, nowhere is that cliché more popular than in Democratic Party condemnations of all things Republican, and – more specifically – all things Bush. Bush scared Americans into war, into torturing and incarcerating a quasi-mythic threat; into Gitmo and surveillance and civil rights erosions, solely because he was so effective at selling fear. The irony is in the telling fact that Democrats, if they do anything, at least exploit the fear of fear. And yet they do far more than that.
In Tuesday night’s Democratic debate in Nevada telecast on MSNBC (see YouTube clip here [00:25 min.]), Barack Obama perfectly executed the Democratic fear play:
“There is no doubt we’ve been dominated by a politics of fear since 9/11… But I have to say that when Sen. Clinton uses the specter of a terrorist attack … during a campaign, I think that it is part and parcel with what we have seen, the use of the fear of terrorism in scoring political points, and I think that’s a mistake. Now, I don’t want to perpetuate that. I think that’s part of why we ended up going into Iraq and made a big strategic error that has made us less safe. Resources that could have been spent on homeland security have been spent in Baghdad. Resources that could have been spent hunting down bin Laden, have been diverted to Iraq, and that’s what happens when your judgment is clouded, and what I intend to do as President of the United States is to be honest and straightforward with the American people about how I am going to implement all the 9/11 Commission Report findings, make sure that we are hunting down bin Laden, getting out of Iraq so we can re-focus our attention on building the networks and alliances that are required to reduce terrorism around the world. That’s going to be my priority and that’s part of the reason I am running for President of the United States.” [Emphasis added]
That Mr. Obama’s contradiction – I will not perpetuate fear but we are less safe than ever -- will be overlooked by his charmed supporters is unarguable; that his position is nearly identical with everyone else in his party is equally unassailable. His entire statement could be reasonably construed as a reformation – at least in spirit – of the “Bush lied, people died” mantra.
But I am not here to quibble about the genesis of the war, especially with those who find the roots of war in Genesis. My complaint is that Mr. Obama and his party are also peddling fear; Mr. Obama – and Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Edwards – are fear-mongers. “We are less safe” is hardly the only dire warning Democrats voice. There is a whole litany of warnings issued by Democrats at every turn. And hardly a soul challenges those party-faithful who serve as prophets of doom. Below is a short list of examples (not direct quotes) that capture the essence of Democratic fear-baiting.
On economics:
“We are in recession. People are insecure.”
“The gap between rich and poor is growing.”
“There have never been so many foreclosures.”
"We must rebuild the middle class."
On international relations:
“America’s reputation in the world has never been so tarnished.”
“We must restore our image in the sight of the Europeans.”
“Neo-conservatives have pushed America into colonial expansionism.”
On domestic issues:
“Republicans want to rob women of the right to choose, and due access to health care.”
“Republicans don’t care about those of you without proper health care. We need universal care now.”
“The Republican Party has no qualms denying to all -- regardless of gender identity -- the right to marry. ”
On energy:
“We MUST free ourselves of our dependence on foreign oil.”
“The profits of BIG OIL are unfair!”
“We must work to end global warming today, before it is too late!”
On the war:
“The war on terror is a failure.”
“Iraq was a mistake.”
“We must reallocate our resources and redeploy our troops so we can capture Osama bin Laden. He’s still out there!”
On EVERYTHING:
“Republicans are playing the fear card!”
Of course, I admit that Republicans do play the fear card; I also admit that I am not really singling out Mr. Obama. All candidates exploit fear. Candidates even issue warnings about other candidates. But Mr. Obama himself has opened the door to my criticism largely for his sophistry quoted above. Even the title of his book, The Audacity of Hope, is rooted in fear: we are doomed without audacious hope in the face of our problems. (Is he the Deliverer we MUST have to lead us out of our many difficulties?)
As I said, there is irony to be found when Democrats refer to right-wing fear-mongering. I don’t know if the irony is in that they don’t know they themselves are also peddling fear; perhaps they do. But if they do, there is something really disconcerting about it all.
Peace.
©Bill Gnade 2008/Contratimes. All Rights Reserved.
7 comments:
Only by making the public feel insecure about something, i.e. terror, global warming, the economy, etc., can politicians induce it to part with cherished freedoms. If the politicians were honest, they'd say "I really get my jollies by ordering people around -- by controlling you. Let me do it."
Of course, that wouldn't play in Peoria, so they say, "assign to me your personal autonomy and I shall make you safe."
And that's what scares me.
Cheers.
Hey Bill, it's been quite some time, but let me assure you I still read your writings frequently -- I enjoy them very much (even when I disagree).
I must first admit that I, for one, am a supporter of Obama. I feel that his campaign, for the most part, has been a refreshing departure from orthodox politics, except for maybe the point of your post, Bill (which I will address). With that said, I will concede that a barrage of fearful rhetoric is indeed the democratic base of attack, especially this election year. I would disagree, as I assume you would as well, that this psychological tactic is more than a democratic mishap in rhetoric.
However, in order for any serious democratic candidate to come across as politically viable, why wouldn't they emphasis the "fear option." With that basic political postulate established, let me ask you something: how much similar do you really see Hillary Clinton to Barack Obama, in respect to the fear mongering rhetoric?
Your title is an obvious play-on-words to Obama book, The Audacity of Hope, so I feel it unnecessary to clarify your inklings towards Obama. Is that really a fair evaluation? Did the current administration not indulge in the biggest fear campaign since McCarthyism (other references may be more appropriate, but this one may be my favorite)? The neo-conservatives disinformation campaign, let by now notorious figures such as Elliot Abrams, Paul Wolfowitz, Dick Cheney, John Negroponte, Karl Rove, and John Negroponte (the list could conceivable go on), whose foreign policy subterfuges led an entire nation to believe in an illogical political nexus, has destroyed American international credibility, and has thrown the balance of power in the Middle East into disarray. Who in their right political mind wouldn't play this off of the Republican party? It would not only be political foolish but popularly irresponsible. The people not only deserve to be enraged by this, they should be! 9/11 was indeed a tragic event, but perhaps what was even more tragic was the sly manipulation of the American populace by the current administration.
Perhaps Obama's claim to not perpetuate fear, while at the same time stating that we are indeed in a perilous situation may not be as contradicting as you make it seem. Is it all that outlandish to state the, more or less, obvious point of view that America is in relative peril; while at the same time avoiding the invocation of fear by referencing 9/11 and the fearful memories of terrorist attacks and the feeling of complete vulnerability?
"We need change, because what has been done has put our nation into a bind -- a bind that puts us into a less-than-favorable position." This kind of statement does indeed invoke a certain sense of alarm, obviously. Citing 9/11 and terrorist attacks is in whole other alarmist category, a more fearful one.
Perhaps I am reading into this whole "fear politicking" too much. It may be fact that Obama appeals to emotion -- who doesn't? Does he contradict himself in his own rhetoric? I like to think not, but then again I am an Obama supporter and believe in his message of hope and progress -- although never losing my sense of cynicism and skepticism, especially towards professional politicians.
Good post, Bill -- enjoyed it. Fear politicking is indeed a psychological aspect of politics and sociology to be considered.
Dear S.C.,
Blessings to you!
Thanks for the kind words; thanks for the thoughtful comments.
Let me agree with everything you've said, at least most of everything you've said. I do so solely for the sake of argument.
My point here, really, is to throw up a red flag. I am not picking on Mr. Obama. I am picking on what amounts to a lie. When a candidate suggests that he is exempt from playing the politics of fear, he is committing the very thing he decries by granting himself that exemption. In essence, that candidate is trying to strike fear in us about the threat of political fear-mongering: "Be afraid of those who use fear to win votes!" You get the picture.
I am not accusing Mr. Obama of doing anything unique. His sin, if you will, is utterly common among politicians. It is the most used tactic in ANY campaign; I would venture a guess that any candidate who has NOT used this tactic has never won a single contest.
What I hope to accomplish here is merely to get readers to be wary, to be on the lookout. Most voters are not swayed by policy but by personality; the American process of electing a president is more a popularity contest than it is a battle of ideas. Most people are voting for who can "win," not who really is best suited to lead. Of course, there are even those who confuse winning with excellence, or some other quality attributed to real leaders. The best person may not win at all; the best person is probably not even in the running.
But the reality is that fear is foundational to campaigning.
I have already written here a few times about Mr. Obama, pro and con. I find him engaging, captivating, and decent. I flat out just like him, even if he and I differ on the answers to the questions asked. I would LOVE to see him win the nomination. Sadly, at this point my cynicism is so deep that I believe Mr. Obama would have a much easier time becoming the next president if he was running as a Republican. The Democratic Party, I am afraid, is betraying itself.
For shame, really.
Peace to you,
BG
"The Democratic Party, I am afraid, is betraying itself."
That's the age-old story right? Since time-immemorial.
The democrats are notorious for self-destruction.
S.C.,
Yesterday, while driving into town listening to Rush Limbaugh on the radio, I was nearly moved to tears when he played the clip of the SC debate from Monday night in which Mrs. Clinton and Barack Obama dueled. I was so angry at the Clintons, and so hurt for all my many idealistic friends who support Mr. Obama, and for Mr. Obama himself, that I felt like pulling over to the side of the road and cry (and then when I was done crying, I wanted to exit my car and do some sort of vandalism).
I do NOT know how anyone can support what the Clintons are doing. Democrats everywhere should be storming the state houses in protest; they should be marching on Washington. This is an ideological crime we are witnessing.
In a conversation yesterday in the local grocery store, the mother of a stalwart Obama campaign worker said that her daughter and son-in-law will NOT vote at all in the general election if Hillary Clinton wins the nomination. My guess is that a Clinton victory will seriously alienate the millions of young voters who have supported Mr. Obama. Their ideals are being dashed by the Clintons; the Clintonian win-at-all-costs-and-fix-the-damage later strategy will not rescue these idealists from their cynicism and malaise.
If Barack Obama was a Republican he would become the party's nominee without ANY of this disgusting innuendo, or the propagandizing by the misleading use of facts. I am sickened on a lot of different levels -- my head, my heart and my gut.
Peace.
BG
I feel your agony. And I'm pretty sure that I agree with most other young, hopeful Americans, that if HRC gets the nomination we're abstaining. Here's something I wrote the other day:
"Firstly, I support Obama until its over (for him -- if ever, I pray not). However, I have stated several times, especially when I thought that HRC was going to be the obvious choice of many primary and caucus voters, that I will not vote for HRC. Her hawkish foreign policy, fear masquerading, and sentimentally pedantic rhetoric absolutely infuriates me -- not to mention her self-deprecating, feel oh-so-sorry for me nonsense makes Steve want to smack a Clinton.
I do respect McCain, I always said that. Would I conceivably vote for him? Well that's a whole other story in itself.
I figure it this way: If I don't vote (for a President) -- assuming HRC gets the nomination -- then it would be not voting for a democrat, and giving only a partial vote to the Republican nominee, since I wouldn't be canceling out any Republic vote but wouldn't be casting one either.
Kinda sucks. Too bad people are too susceptible to the political subterfuges of the Clinton camp. God awful shame."
Bill, Excellent essay and follow-up conversation.
While stopping well short of an endorsement, I had been a frequent supporter of Hillary over on my blog (you'll haver to forgive me, I'm also a McCain supporter). But, like you, I'm sickened by the recent exchanges from the proposed "co-presidents" of Bill and Hillary.
You do have to ask yourself, "Is this the kind of scheeching partisan horror we want for the next four years?"
The answer is certainly a resounding "NO!!!"
Just a note to let you know I do continue to drop by and enjoy your writings.
All the best, the Wizard.......
Post a Comment