Party Watchwords: Fairness and Fear

A watchword is the familiar code used by a sentinel to tell the approach of a friend. After three debates and a protracted exposure to campaigns that show consistency on both sides, we can say what the watchwords of the parties have become. The Democrats are speaking of fairness, the Republicans are speaking of fear.

Once or twice in last night's debate, Barack Obama referred to the value of fairness in the civic life of democracy. Joe Biden, with greater sharpness and force, made the revival of fairness almost the central theme of his debate against Sarah Palin.

It doesn't seem fair that every month in Baghdad the federal government spends money it no longer has to spend in Galveston or New Orleans. It doesn't seem fair that the Republican candidate for president has come into this campaign without a semblance of a plan for medical insurance, and that, as a substitute, he palms off on voters a $5,000 check from the government, without telling us that adequate coverage now costs about $12,000 for a family of four. It doesn't seem fair that the CEOs and stockbrokers and stockjobbers who made out like bandits while they destroyed the economy are now assisted by Treasury to execute their getaway with a parachute of gold.

John McCain, a man celebrated for his courage, could not be the one to carry the message of fear which is the most infectious vote-getter of his campaign. That work has therefore been entrusted to Sarah Palin; and she does it with a credulous devotion that suits her personal style. "I am just so fearful," she said in a speech on October 6 in Clearwater, Florida, "that [Barack Obama] is not a man who sees America the way that you and I see America--as the greatest source of good in this world." And again: "I'm afraid this is someone who sees America as imperfect enough to work with a former domestic terrorist who had targeted his own country."

The repetition of the idea of fear, in the words fearful and afraid, was a carefully coached piece of rhetorical insinuation. Yet Palin's phrasing also brought an oddly disturbing echo for anyone who had seen the e-mails channeled in susceptible right-wing circles half a year ago--mailings which spoke of powerful evidence that Obama was a secret Muslim with dubious intentions toward this country. At the bottom of one such letter were the unsigned words: "I'm afraid of this one. I'm just so fearful." An unwary reader might naturally assume that the disarming confession had come--with the signature somehow erased by accident--from an anxious woman of uncertain education in her late seventies or eighties. It now seems likelier that those words came out of the workshop of Karl Rove. Anyway they have become Sarah Palin's words. She speaks for, she has become, that elderly, shaken white woman who is "so afraid" of Obama. It was noticeable too, in last night's debate, that McCain threw out a studied echo of the same letter's use of "this one" when, quite oddly, he called his opponent "that one."

Sarah Palin, as immodest as she is unqualified, has thus been put to the job of trawling for undecided voters who are racially anxious enough to be tipped into voting for McCain by one additional rumor or tremor or fear. It must be added that in this rotten cause, she received some unexpected assistance from the lead story on William Ayers which the New York Times published on October 4. The story by Scott Shane disclosed, in elaborate detail, that there was nothing much to the connection between Obama and Ayers. Other newspapers had reached the same conclusion with less fuss. The effect of the Times's 135 column-inches and the longhair Sixties photos and the fingerprints and picture of Ayers's arrest--the effect of this peculiar treatment was, by the very fact of bringing the matter into discussion, to support the idea of some connection between Obama and the word "terrorist." It was left to Palin merely to insert the word "domestic."

Why did the Times do it? There are several possible answers, all of them unpleasant. One has heard it said that the story, accurate in its details after all, was long in the works and only its timing was unfortunate. Still, the decision to run at all a very big story on the very small subject of Obama's friendship with Ayers, is not a decision that an institution like the Times, with its layers of editors and managers and ownership, could possibly have taken lightly. The same paper that says we ought to negotiate with Iran, and yet says that Iran is an "existential threat," now wants us to know that Obama is a serious candidate, yet it wants to show what a long story can be made of the threat his former associations might be felt to present.

Possibly these swings of emphasis are sincere--if we can allow an institution the virtue of sincerity. Yet "there are kinds of sincerity," wrote Camus, "so confused that they are worse than lies." By now Americans know Barack Obama about as well as they have ever known a candidate for high office. The reasons to vote for or against him turn out to be ordinary reasons. If there is a silent scandal in the campaign, as it now goes forward, it comes from nothing in his past, and nothing, even, in the legend-laden and reconstituted past of John McCain. The scandal is the presence on the Republican side of a candidate who by policy is kept away from questioning by the press. That is a story. Nor would it show imbalance or partiality for the better newspapers of this country now to declare the simple fact. To run someone for vice-president who cannot answer political questions is an abuse of civic responsibility which is rapidly becoming a national outrage.

Comments

[livingontop]

Isn't it nice that the Times felt compelled to bring this non-story out 1 month before elections but before the Nov. 2, 2004, election the Times sat on the story that the Bush administration and its secret wiretapping operation for a year.

[hgovernick]

Dear Mr. Bromwich,
Thank you for your insightful perspectives.
It was fear of Communism that prompted me to enlist in the Marine Corps in 1966. At age 18, I had no understanding whatsoever of the geopolitical / millitary-industrial motivations behind that other illegal war. If someone had told me then that Lyndon Johnson's symbiotic relationship with Brown-Root was as much a reason for that war as America's determination to thwart Communism, I would have dismissed it as anti-American propaganda.
Now we are faced with the fear of the economy. For me the jury's still out whether this fear is being exploited by both parties. This financial armageddon is the ultimate reality show - starring everyone on the planet., winner to be announced at a later date. Possibilities for exploitation are endless, and I am convinced that no one is beyond the temptation to fix the outcome. It seems the love of money is indeed the root of all evil. And across the globe, people are living in fear as the love interest in their lives succumbs to cancer.
Any fear I may have today is for the masses of my fellow human beings all over the world who are afraid - I can find only a few here who aren't. Most have seemed to have forgotten that in the worst of times, we still have each other. With power like that no one can control us.

[OmnesOmnibus]

Good job on the New York Times contradiction. Just like the New Yorker cover, it shows the schizophrenic nature of their relationship to Obama and to their connections to the Neo-Cons and the Pro Israel lobby (their review of the Mersheimer and Walt book bout the Israel lobby was buried in their Entertainment section). Though not as Neo-Con as the Washington Post the Times, even after shedding Judith Miller hired the rather ridiculous crackpot William Kristol. Who knows what their real sentiments are in the crosswinds of their currents?

[DLB]

"The Democrats are speaking of fairness..."

"Fairness" is the watchword indeed for the democrats. But whose definition? Is it the republican definition: "a helping hand", or the democrat definition: "a handout."

"...Republicans are speaking of fear."

"Fear" is the watchword indeed for the republicans. But again, whose definition? Is it the democrat definition: "Beware of republicans, they're evil", or the republican definition: "There really are people that want to destroy our nation, and some of them are right here in America."

[Stoyver]

There really are people in this country who want to destroy us! There DLB, now are you happy? Now perhaps you might consider a threat analysis. Look at how much damage a foe can inflict, then react. Flushing the Constitution down the crapper because your scared of certain Arabs is irrational, undignified, disgusting, cowardly and... well you get the message. It is also Un-American! I don't give a rat what Hannity says, hes in on the ruse!

Republicans have skipped threat analysis and used the compliant corporate media to insinuate that all enemys are capable of our destruction. Iraq was the biggest such lie. Now, Republicans are running scared of every little tin pot dictator that is not servile to our corporate interests. How pathetic! Sorry but I ain't so scared. And yes, I am a veteran and would readily volunteer to go after a real, genuine threat. I refuse to fight for Exxon's share holders though. I draw the line there. Republicans don't.

Republicans want to turn America into a police state because they are scared to death of those the media tell us to be scared of. As it turns out "my Republican friends" it is deregulated fat cat bankers that are about to take America down, not Arabs or Russians! Think about that over the next few months, while we observe the slow-motion economic train wreck unfolding before our eyes. Peace!

[DLB]

My guess is that you subscribe to the "Beware of republicans, they're evil" side.

You FEAR republicans.

[zanzig]

"some of them are right here in America" ... even in the White House.

[DLB]

You make a great case for NOT giving the presidency to the neophyte.

[Brandij]

As an African-American this doesn't surprise me. For years we have been taunted as different - someone you should be careful of - this goes on in our everyday life. If I go to the Prada store to purchase a new pair of shoes - I'm closely watched, but the "Sarah Palin" type is greeted with glee.

So it doesn't surprise me that they are doing this to Obama - it saddens me.

Welcome to our world. Not every black is suspect.

[USA1776]

Republicans = rich people, racists and the religious right
Democrats = everyone else

[AkronBob]

I'm confused.

Let's see: Barack Obama is:
AN ELITEIST

A SOCIALIST

A HARVARD GRADUATE

Hmmm....

[Glenn1441]

And your point, Mr. Bob?

[plebeianswillrevolt]

National insult. he selection of Palin is worse than the most vile of attack ads they could imagine. Those go, this one stays

But then again so was Bush. We just weren't aware of the possibility at the time. Now we are, now we know.

[AMP43]

Intelligent people knew - I don't feel bad for for our country - we got what we deserved- \

[boing007]

President Bush has been redistributing the nation's wealth for the wellbeing of the rich ever since he came into office. Cost of living up, wages stagnating. Where's the beef?

[handyallen1]

thank you for your insight and reason something in short supply in this election season

[PioneerKing]

Palin also used the word fear about eleven times in her opening statement during her debate with Sen. Biden and also called Sen. Obama dangerous several times.