Threat as Tactic? Why Hillary's Warning is Right

Democratic presidential candidate Senator Hillary Clinton (D-NY) is getting a pounding -- from liberal blogs and her Democratic rivals for the presidency -- because she had the temerity to warn voters that a possible terrorist attack before the election might strengthen the Republicans' hand. Chris Dodd called the comment "tasteless" and liberal bloggers are savaging her for, in their view, caving to the Republican framing of the terror issue.

These critics are being extraordinarily historically naive. If all Mrs. Clinton meant was that a genuine terror attack would empower Republicans, then sure -- under current social consensus, her comment is in poor taste. (Though this notion -- that examining the possible domestic fallout of terror attacks is vulgar, or unpatriotic, is one of those quasi-Victorian conventions that does not serve the vigorous debate needed in a time of crisis). But if Mrs. Clinton is also trying to warn voters about something even more difficult for us to talk about, then she is absolutely right -- even brave -- and her critics are frighteningly ill-informed of the past.

Mrs. Clinton is right to caution voters to consider the domestic outcome of a possible terror-related event before the election -- if you factor into her caution this taboo subtext: if the terror scare in question is exaggerated, or even manufactured, to serve a domestic political purpose.

Even as I write those words, I understand I am breaching a major social taboo of our particular time and place. There is a general polite consensus right now that maintains two no-debate areas: 1) you are not, if you are a serious person, allowed to note in public that it is possible that this White House -- or any U.S. leader ever -- might conceivably distort or hype the terror threat for political purposes (though plenty of serious people discuss this possibility in private); and 2) if you are a serious person, you are not allowed to suggest in public that it is remotely possible that in America elections could possibly be deliberately thrown off course any more directly than, say, the vote recount of 2000.

Sadly, these two current taboos fly in the face of history -- both of the history of weakening democracies overseas and the history of our own nation.

It is standard practice for corrupt leaders who are seeking a certain political outcome to hype or manipulate a terror threat -- or a threat of violent domestic subversion. While sometimes the threat is manufactured, frequently the hyped threat is based on a real danger.

Stalin warned of "sleepers" -- covert agents of capitalism who would rise up at a signal and wreak mayhem arming peaceful Soviet citizens -- an invented threat. But General Augusto Pinochet secured his coup in Chile in 1973 by elaborating upon a genuine threat: citizens were told that armed Unidad Popular insurgents, who were real, were planning a terror attack -- a mass assassination of national leaders -- a charge which was not real. He even showed their purported arms caches neatly lined up on TV and released, to the horror of Chileans, faked documents planning the alleged attack -- the sinisterly named "Plan Z." Similar tactics have been duplicated by corrupt leaders in many contexts worldwide.

Has the U.S. itself never hyped a threat for political purposes?

When it seemed as if there would be a war with France, the Sedition Act of 1798 was passed after President John Adams had managed to scare Americans about French refugees in the U.S. who were dead set, he warned, on scary "sedition." President Wilson's Committee on Public Information churned out propaganda in the form of unsubstantiated, terrifying atrocity stories to prepare the ground for reluctant American citizens to support our entry into the Great War. The Justice Department during World War Two generated support for the internment of 120,000 Japanese-Americans with suggestions that they might otherwise engage in "espionage" and "sabotage." While General Eisenhower did not participate in Senator Joe McCarthy's red-baiting directly leading up to the 1952 election, he did not repudiate the tactics. Moreover, by calling Democrats "traitors" in its party platform, Eisenhower's Republican Party exploited the Senator's alarming national iteration that a secret network of subversives had infiltrated the State Department, Hollywood and even the Army, intent on a bloody revolution to install a Communist regime in the U.S. -- a charge that, as Ted Morgan exhaustively noted in his history Reds: McCarthyism in Twentieth-Century America, was a violent inflammation of a partial truth.

Has the U.S. never used agents provocateurs or fake documents to provoke, demonstrate or hype a threat for political purposes? David Cunningham, in his magisterial study There's Something Happening Here: The New Left, the Klan, and FBI Counterintelligence, documents the extensive use of agents provocateurs by the FBI during the 1960's and early 1970's. These provocateurs were trained to infiltrate groups such as the civil rights movement and, later, the anti-war movement, and engage in destruction of property and violence -- thus casting these entities in the public eye as scary, destabilizing threats to American values and social order.

As for fake documents to hype a terror threat -- well: sometimes the elephant is just right in the middle of the room. One only has to mention the yellowcake charge that led us straight into the Iraq war. This administration has ALREADY distorted a terror scare for political purposes -- in a fairly substantial way. As Frank Rich, in his book The Greatest Story Ever Sold, and many other commentators -- including the Italian journalists who originally rejected the forged documents -- have proven, the documents that the White House used to under gird its warning that "we don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud" were identified TO the administration as flat out forgeries by level after level of journalists, intelligence staff, State Department employees, and so on. These documents were used to scare the heck out of us anyway, and almost four thousand young people are now dead.

Finally, I am sorry to say, there is the fact that, historically, when leaders are seeking to close down an open society, the months leading up to an election are traditionally the most unstable time -- the period most likely to see reports of a frightening purported threat "just-foiled," an apparent awful breach "just-averted," or even a dramatic actual provocation -- which requires, then, a strong hand to restore "public order." Mrs. Clinton pointed out that even though it is a "horrible prospect," sometime you have to ask "What if?"

At the conclusion of my argument about the closing down of our democracy in The End of America: A Letter of Warning to a Young Patriot, there is a series of `What ifs?' positing various scenarios, based on the historical record about closing societies, that could realistically play out -- yes, even here in America -- in the run-up to the election. To put it mildly: You want to know and think about the history of such scenarios in advance, since one quality such tactics depend upon is the element of surprise.

Let's also compare the way this White House talks about the terror threat with the way other societies that have decades-long experience with terrorist attacks do. And let's use our common sense. Anyone who has ever lived in Israel -- a country where, since its very birth, sophisticated terrorists have been targeting the civilian population day and night -- knows that you NEVER get the equivalent of broad-anxiety-inducing alerts in Tel Aviv or Jerusalem like the "red alert" or "orange alert" system here at home. At the most, in Israel, you get practical, low-key, usable information from the state -- for example, "avoid the Machaneh Yehudah marketplace this Friday afternoon" -- no matter who is in power. Israelis, consequently, experience, on the day-to-day level, the possibility of terror attacks as a specific, real danger -- but not as a state-produced existential condition, a matrix of helpless fear. (Indeed, avoiding national fear from terror attacks is a point of pride in Israel that transcends party lines).

Nor do Israelis get our regular-as-rain triumphalist narratives in the press about this or that terrorist's creepy bio, his sinister face, or this or that thwarted, grandiose attack on this or that cherished national monument. There is not a constant struggle between the Knesset and the party in power over the declassification of intelligence, comparable to our struggle here at home. Rather, when there is something the people need to know, Mossad lets the people's leaders -- whatever party is in power -- know it. Everyone in Israel understands that terror is too serious to mess with politically -- that intelligence about attacks is too important to disclose or to conceal for political purposes -- and that Mossad is always, very quietly, at work.

Anyone who has lived in the UK during the years of regular, bloody IRA bombings has experienced similar restraint. Nations that have long been primarily intent on tracking and thwarting terrorists -- rather than, perhaps, driving policy with fear -- just don't talk about terrorism in the same way (or nearly so much). Even now -- fighting the very same "bad guys" that we are fighting -- Gordon Brown has reminded his nation and ours that "terrorism is not a cause, it is a crime."

Finally, if this administration did not have a seven-year track record of violating other major democratic principles that stand in its way, it would be easier to dismiss the need for a warning of this kind.

Is it irrational to consider the possibility of a hyped threat or even a provocation before the election? It is, at this point, irrational to refuse to do so. If this White House had no actual major record of hyping a threat -- if the U.S. had no record of inflating various fears for political ends -- and if weakening democracies worldwide had no record of manipulating terror narratives to drive certain outcomes, it would indeed be illogical -- even paranoid -- to worry about a possible hyped threat or provocation that is politically driven.

But given the current administration's record of lying to Congress, the American people and the UN about such threats; given that it used fake documents to do so; given that it has often splashed out widely-reported terror charges that then vanish or subside during actual trials (the course corrections of which are seldom as widely reported); given our own nation's history of not being immune to the temptations on the part of leaders of using fear to drive a political outcome -- is it not, rather, almost criminally naive to REFUSE even to consider the possibility of a hyped threat or provocation close to the election?

The consequences of maintaining this denial may be nothing -- or they may be very serious indeed.

It is never smart, even in a strong democracy, to declare some debate off limits, and in a weakening democracy it is catastrophic. Our refusal to look squarely at the possibility that our American president might manipulate our fears has an element of pathology to it: we are like an abused woman who wants to believe that surely this time he will do what is right -- or a child in an abusive family who can't look at the fact that Daddy might not be an ever-benign protector.

Such collective blind spots are dangerous always, but especially now. Dan Goleman, author of Emotional Intelligence and Vital Lies (and, disclosure, my maternal uncle) points out that every group observes what he calls "The Four Attentional Rules." "In any group," he notes, "from the family, to organizations, to entire societies, there are these unstated rules that we learn tacitly about the questions that can't be asked. They are:

1: Here's what we notice

2: Here's what we call it

3: Here's what can't be noticed

4: We are at a loss to talk about it because we can't admit we see it."

Number four is just too serious to risk at a time such as this.

Let's dare to release our immature fantasies of a magically faultless American system and a magically protected election process. We have been lucky, as a nation; but sometimes continued luck depends on action.

Hillary Clinton's rivals should back down; she was the first to dare to imply what we must all directly consider.

Sometimes collective blind spots -- agreements not to look -- are not a problem; and sometimes -- as in a dramatically weakening democracy -- such blind spots can become big enough to prove self-destructive indeed.

Naomi Wolf is the author of the forthcoming The End of America: A Letter of Warning to a Young Patriot, Chelsea Green Publishing, Sept 2007

Comments

[ameliae]

Does everyone remember most of the hijackers on 9/11 were Saudis? Aren't the Bushies and the Saudi rulers thick as thieves? Did 9/11 turn out to be a boon for Dubya? It ensured his increased powers his re-election, because we all know US citizens don't change presidents during a war. Give me Monica-gate any day over condemning to death countless civilians and 3737 U.S. troops. And for what? To enrich his cronies? Because Cheney wanted it? Because Saddam "tried to kill my dad"?

[splashy]

Well said! I think Hillary has a very good point, and hope that it will not come to pass.

Wouldn't put it past any of these Repub criminals though. Rove is on the loose out there, and could easily stage something that can be blown out of proportion by the establishment media run by the right wingers.

Hopefully by talking about it people will be prepared to just laugh at or ignore their BS.

[rich1107]

The Republicans have been successful in dividing the working class, that includes those of you who receive a paycheck and most of you that write pay checks. Get over the label; if you work for a living you are almost certainly middle class. The only way this gets solved in the long term is to strengthen the labor (working class). maybe we need to do away with the term "Union" since Reagan et al. have succeeded in making it a dirty word. Call unions labor co-ops, Working persons Advocacy Group, whatever. Unless there is a meaningful and powerful counterbalance to Capital the middle class is screwed. Relative to the current discussion; HC is the furthest to the right of any Democratic candidate and therefore unlikely to do the things necessary to put the country back on track. She is just as owned by the corporations as anybody in the Republican party. We need real change; not redecorating.

[Tigershark]

I became an instant fan of Naomi Wolf after reading this blog today. She hit the nail on the head, made me realize things I hadn't known I felt, and sold one more copy of her upcoming book.

Coincindentally I saw Ms Wolf on Chris Matthews later in the day, and thought he treated her badly. He can't attack my hero, I said, I only just discovered her three hours ago! The discussion was on another subject(Senator Craig in the men's bathroom). When Wolf tried to bring in her own context and perspective to the story, Matthews, acting like an ass, told her to shut up and stick to the subject. "We only want to talk about gay men having sex in public bathrooms!" he basically said. "Don't change the subject, or we won't get the ratings!" He might as well have said that. Anyway, why does Matthews bring on intelligent and thougtful guests if he cannot tolerate where they might take a particular issue? If he only wants them to say what he wants, he should just talk to himself.

Anyway, way to go Naomi, for handling Matthews with such grace, but even more for your great blog.

[makesenseofit]

If everything happened to this point happened without some theatrics those believers must say their prayers now.
Hilary is leading the way for those liberals and conservatives who believe everything they hear and see. She will be the savior to the
ignorant and brain washed citizens whose robotic behavior developed over the last six plus years.

[savannasmiles]

I wonder how many people watch Keith Obermann.
He has many many times highlighted the coincidence
between "terror alerts" and issues the Bush administration might just like to hide or move off the front page. Highlighting this coincidence is not so uncommon or verboten as Naomi might think. You just have to watch the right programming.

[robgo2]

So, Hillary says that another terrorist attack upon the U.S. will work to the Republican Party's political advantage. The intelligent and logical conclusion to be drawn from such and attack is that Bush's "War on Terror" has not only failed, it has, in fact, made us less safe. However, when a leading Democrat publically draws the opposite conclusion, it has the inevitable effect of validating the Republicans' absurd contention that they are better at protecting the nation.
To put it bluntly, Hillary's statement is both irresponsible and wrongheaded and may ultimately serve as a self fulfilling prophecy. If she cannot even make this obvious case against the Bushies, she is not fit to be President.
Although Hillary and her advisors may be shrewd triangulators, they are seriously lacking in judgement. Of course, we already knew that from her ardent support of the war up until the last few months.
Run, Al Gore. Please run.

[mick3]

Of course there will be an "event" before the 2008 elections. How can anyone think otherwise of the folks who arranged 9/11? That's when we get martial law and those nice new concentration camps will finally be of use.

I care little for either rightwing Clinton, but she was correct long ago on the "rightwing conspiracy" and she's right about this.

Those candidates who pretend to be shocked by what she said should be ignored (dumped. They are either idiotic or liars.

[DMKM510]

Thank you for saying what I have thought ever since the domocrats took back the congress.
Most people now see how we were manipulated into the war and are upset about tax cuts to the wealthy while we still have no healthcare and the coutries infrastructure is failing, and ready to vote for a big change. But,it will only take an attack or ratcheted threats to pull the support away even though we should see how incompetent this administration and it's party has been at handling the war, the federal budget and US disasters while providing windfall profits to the already mega-wealthy.
The right used fear succesfully in 2004 and will probably go to that well again if it can no matter how it can`...yes I have been thinking of it too and agree with Hillary Clinton and think she showed courage in stating a fear many of us have been harboring
in our hearts as we look forward to a big change in the next election.

[bethinCary]

It's really dumb for Hil to say she is the only one who can be tough on terror. she's already gotten the Iraq war Vote. do you really think anyone wants to take the chance on someone who does not have proven sound judgement on such foreign policy issues as war. cluster bombs and nukes are another reason to look at her. Hil is a neocon in Progressive clothing.

[bethinCary]

Ms. wolf-what you don't get is that Hil is going after the neocon vote to abandon her base. she wants to keep telling Dems they are victims. i'm a Dem-but I won't be following Hil to a path of more war.

[Dansden]

EVERY DAY THAT BUSH IS IN OFFICE IS AN AFFRONT TO OUR CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, AN EMBARRASSMENT TO OUR CONSTITUTIONAL PROMISES AND A DESTRUCTION OF OUR NATIONAL ECONOMY, ENVIRONMENT, EDUCATIONAL SYSTEM and EFFECTIVENESS IN THE WORLD GOALS OF PEACE and HOPE AND HEALTH....
Facts speak so loudly that Americans are embarrassed and afraid to utter the TRUTH out loud!

[Unitari]

thank you Naomi,
great article
I think Hillary knows what she is talking about and she knows how to win. which is what we need.

[turquhart]

One of Naomi's key points few seemed to have focused on involves "serious people" not being able to discuss "things". Many who are well read in terms of the lead-up to war, pre-9/11 intelligence, etc. know what those things are.

She's hit it right on the head. What a crazy world it's become. She's right, "serious" people are wise enough to know that, at least for the time being, you just can't go there.

[Damfino]

I am not a Hillary fan. In fact, I subscribe to the late Molly Ivins article titled "Anyone But Hillary." Nevertheless, she has articulated a warning that we all might heed. It is not beyond the realm of possibility that at some point after November this year, when the campaign (God, what a farce?) officially begins, leaning more closely to the election itself, that some contrived national emergency will arise which will "demand" that the President assume additional powers not granted by the Constitution and maintain those powers (just as he is now doing with his warrentless wire taps and searches) so long as he deems them necessary -- who knows, 2012? -- sounds like a good number. If you think this impossible (not likely, possible), than you are not living in a real world, which is where this administration wants you to live, in the world whose reality they have created.