Politics of Fear
By
Richard W.
Crockett
Another terrorist attack on the
United States Òwould be a big advantageÓ to Senator John McCain, according to
McCain campaign advisor Charlie Black. McCain quickly disassociated himself
from the comment. The candidate
should never say such a thing, in the world of politics, only campaign
advisors, who can be fired if necessary can say such a thing. That way, the
candidate can get the utility of the remark, and the distance from it needed to
maintain his respectability. The
remark can be seen in a number of different lights. First it can be seen as a prediction of a factual outcome.
The assumption is that such an event would heighten the public awareness of
national security as an issue and that such heightening would accrue to
McCainÕs benefit, because American voters would then capitulate to McCain as
ÒexperiencedÓ in military affairs.
This conclusion also assumes that the American voter would not notice
that the Republican administrationÕs efforts in Iraq at making America more
secure from Osama Bin Laden would have been breached, and further, that the
failure to locate, arrest, or eliminate Osama Bin Laden would not be
noticed. It also assumes that the
American people are truly shallow in their powers of observation about the
entire picture of national security and that they would vote their emotions and
fears rather than their thoughtful reflection of the issue. It also is predicated on a calculation,
which assumes the inability of the Obama campaign to convince the American
voter that such a breach in our defenses would be a failure of existing
Republican policy. Still it is
possible that Black could be right.
Since the politics of fear depends upon the electorate taking refuge
from that fear by attaching itself to familiar moorings, rather than remaining
adrift in a sea of fear. They would count upon those moorings to be in the
Republican Party, and the voterÕs decision would be not to rock the Republican
boat.
The reaction of the Obama campaign
to the remark betrays some concern of its own-- that Black could be right-- and
the response is to try to cast the remark as the wish being understood as the
father of the thought. The campaign characterized the comment as Òa
complete disgrace, and is exactly the kind of politics that needs to
change." John Kerry has called it "the worst of the Rove-Bush fear
playbook," They have correctly identified the Republican strategy as
conducting their campaign as the politics of fear. It is an effort at trying to scare the voter in to
remaining with the Devil that you know, rather than to take a chance on someone
that you donÕt know. But the
Democrats can play this game too.
Their strategy may be to ÒscareÓ the voter into the recognition that a
vote for McCain is a vote for four more years of Bush policies, including the
failing economy, the failure of a health care delivery system, a burgeoning
deficit and debt, the threat to our ability to finance social security, the
price of energy and over dependence upon big oil companies importing foreign
oil, destructive trade policy, foreign policy incompetence with alienation of
favorable world opinion, and the failure to capture Bin Laden. These circumstances add up to the need
for change.
The challenge for
democracy is classic. It is the need for the voter to recognize the urgency of
voting, the need to reject the hyper-individualist argument that their vote
doesnÕt count, and become a team player and vote anyway, and that the voter
live up to the optimistic view upon which democracy is based, that citizens are
rational actors capable of rising above Friedrich NietzscheÕs horrible claim,
that in democracy, Òcattle become masters.Ó
6/19/08