Fear You Can Believe In?

For folks who pride themselves on traditional virtues like courage, honor, and martial valor, Republicans have become the party of fear. Yesterday on "Meet the Press," Newt Gingrich echoed Dick Cheney's resurrection of eight unnecessary years of national fear under George W. Bush. Said Newt:

"I think people should be afraid. I think the lesson of 1993, the first time they bombed the World Trade Center was fear is probably appropriate. I think the lesson of Khobar Towers where American servicemen were killed in Saudi Arabia was fear is probably appropriate. And the lesson of the two embassy bombings in East Africa was fear is probably appropriate. I think the lesson of The Cole being bombed in Yemen was fear is probably appropriate, and I'll tell you, if you aren't a little bit afraid after 9/11 and 3,100 Americans killed inside the United States by an effort, if you aren't worried about the second wave attack that was designed to take out the biggest building in Los Angeles, I think that you're out of touch with reality."

The point of fear as public policy, of course, is to prime the public to endorse government measures--torture, detention, warrantless wiretapping, internment, and other denials of basic rights--that would never otherwise be acceptable. While it's easy to give such scare tactics a bad name, could they ever be justified? After all, it's one thing for a tight-knit circle of policymakers to convince one another of the need to make hard policy choices; but it's quite another to ensure that millions of ordinary people are willing to support practices that violate their sense of right and wrong. Could it sometimes be necessary to cultivate fear in the masses to sustain widespread support for hard policy choices?

The trouble is, history nearly always proves such fear to be unwarranted and badly destructive. The Red scare that followed World War I was justified by lumping together immigrants, anarchists, Communists, and liberals as threats to the safety of the United States. A peaceful strike following the war was dubbed "an attempted revolution" whose intent was "the overthrow of the industrial system." Such fears allowed the Palmer Raids to wantonly target immigrants and dissidents, detaining and deporting thousands of peaceful dissenters. The wrongful execution of two immigrant laborers, Sacco and Vanzetti, was one result of such conservative terror.

The same fear-mongering resulted in the internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II. And while Gingrich justified fear as a sound basis for national policy by pointing to the need to sustain the Cold War for four decades, that Cold War thinking was also the source of McCarthyism's crusade against dissent.

Since the fall of the Berlin Wall, Communists have made for lousy scapegoats, but gays, who were swept up in the same ignoble purge campaigns emanating from Red scares of old, remain prime fodder. Throughout the Cold War, gays were cast by McCarthy and others as security risks, particularly if they took positions in the government or military, where they were seen--with never an ounce of proof--as threats to order, discipline and cohesion. In 1961, the FBI investigated the first meeting of the Mattachine Society, one of the earliest gay rights groups, and in 1965 the government photographed the first demonstrations by gays and lesbians protesting the military's ban on gay troops.

Forty years later, in 2005, the Pentagon created lists of activist it deemed "suspicious." On one list were student groups who peacefully protested the military's gay ban. They were somehow classified as "possibly violent."

Such outdated government antics are egged on by conservative groups like the Eagle Forum, which was caught last year perpetrating a form of cultural war terrorism: an email from the group's president recommended the use of "gay horror stories" in the battle against gays in uniform. The idea was to convince other Americans that gay troops always and forever "threaten our national security." Likewise, the Center for Military Readiness, a right-wing group dedicated to opposing women and gays in combat, enlisted over 1000 retired officers to sign a letter saying openly gay service would "break" the U.S. military.

It's been the same story when gays seek the right to marry, which many conservatives compare to Middle Eastern terrorism. Radio talk-show host Dennis Prager likened same-sex marriage to Islamic suicide bombings, writing that the fight against both represents "two fronts in the same war - a war for the preservation of the unique American creation known as Judeo-Christian civilization." Concerned Women for America concurred, warning that same-sex marriages "pose a new threat to US border security," and calling legally married Canadian same-sex couples trying to enter the U.S. "the latest pair of 'domestic terrorists.'" Senator Rick Santorum agreed, saying that "standing up and defending marriage" from gays is the "ultimate homeland security." And for James Dobson, founder of Focus on the Family, same-sex marriage is a greater threat than terrorism because it will "destroy us from within."

Mike Huckabee echoed Dobson's suggestion that gay rights would destroy civilization, saying during the primaries that "there's never been a civilization that has rewritten what marriage and family means and survived." And when President Bush announced his support for a constitutional amendment barring same-sex marriage, he said we must "protect marriage in America" or face "serious consequences throughout the country."

Yes, for many conservatives, equality for gays is a cancer whose spread must be feared and blocked at all costs. Bill Frist, the Senate majority leader until 2007, called same-sex marriage a "wildfire" that "is likely to spread to all fifty states." Even the otherwise moderate Arnold Schwarzenegger asserted that same-sex marriages were an "imminent risk to civil order," and worried that San Francisco might erupt in violence as a result of marriage licenses being given out to gay couples. "All of sudden we see riots and we see protests and we see people clashing," he said. "The next thing we know is there's injured or there's dead people." Really? From gays getting married?

There's no doubt that there are times when fear is warranted. The uncertainty of modern life can be scary. And so can Islamic terrorism. After 9/11, fear--at a personal level--was every much in order, a natural reaction to the belated recognition of our national vulnerability. But when, if ever, should fear serve as the basis for sound public policy? And does anyone sense a pattern here with conservative fear-mongering? As Senator Dick Durbin said in response to Gingrich's fear-mongering, "America cowering in fear is not going to be a strong nation." So life is scary. What ever happened to courage, the prime martial virtue that conservatives were supposed to praise and practice?

"There are some things that it is right and honorable to fear," wrote Aristotle. "The man who faces and fears the right things for the right reason and in the right way and at the right time is courageous." But he who "exceeds in fearing is a coward. He fears the wrong thing and in the wrong way and at the wrong time." Has the Republican Party become the party of cowards?

Comments

[rcdcr]

I find it amazing that these politicians are saying these things about ACTUAL LIVING BREATHING HUMAN BEINGS.

Gays & Lesbians would NEVER treat people the way that Straight people have treated us.

I guess we must be better than them.

Or something like that.

[BumpyKnight]

Could that "something" be that Gays and Lesbians understand second class citizenship in ways that Straits can't?

[kittyarmy]

The answer to that is YES. They're too sacred to even look at the muck they are in with realistic & objective eyes, too scared to step out of their own party line. It takes courage to accept criticism and to admit when you have done something wrong. They'll never do it. Yet the ones who make the most noise about "values", like Gingrich and Limbaugh, are the ones most oblivious to themselves lacking those values.

[lde10475]

A certain degree of fear is normal and healthy. It keeps us aware of the potential dangers that threaten our well being. The problem here is that the right works so hard to manipulate people into fearing the wrong things. I'll tell you what I fear---I fear the threat from within far more than the threat from without. I fear that we will end up with an entire generation of undereducated citizens without adequate healthcare. I fear the fact that for 8 years our own leaders used us to further their own political and financial agendas. I fear the fact that we were complacent enough that something like that could happen and could go as far as it did. If we look at the consequences that all of this has had on education alone, we may find a clue as to what the right really fear--a populace that has been educated well enough to see through their lies. A populace that has been educated well enough to feel sure enough of themselves to say, "NO!"

[jsgaetano]

Fear doesn't help, except when it's viewed as an obstacle to be overcome.

Conservatives are people to whom fear is a way of life.

[XME]

Undoubtedly they've become the party of cowards. After all, they're all scaerd to death of Rush. No wonder they attempt to espouse fear...it's all they know!

[blueken]

I thought Bush said that if we didn't go to Disney World and the mall the terroists win? I thought the only thing we really had to worry about was gay people ruining our marriages? It will be a cold day in you know where before I give up my assault rifle, so why should I be afraid. I have fire power. At the end of the day, the only thing I'm really afraid of is affordable health care. That would make me a socialist.

[mykelb]

Are you for real?

[Isis N]

LOL - well said!

[jsgaetano]

Become? You mean there was a time when conservatives WEREN'T afraid of everything? This must have been way before my time.

Sure, conservatives talk a good game, as always, but it's all just bluster. Behind their tough talk, they are wetting their pants. What AREN'T they afraid of? They can't even go into a national park without being armed to the teeth- those big scary squirrels are just too big and scary.

[moonflowerjewelry]

certainly, the nazis got a lot of mileage by beating the twin drums of homeland and fear. becareful, my fellow americans, for what you wish for when someone whips you up into a frenzy of fear and hatred.

[Gidster]

For the jingoistic religious zealots out there, the world is black and white. They are always correct, and any other viewpoint is wrong, and must be vilified.
The Republicans have embraced this meme since Atwater.

Fear is the fastest way through a populations intellect. If you bypass intellect and go straight to their visceral reactionary self, they are much easier to control, and far more susceptible to propaganda.

Look at the anti-choice movement, casting their opposition as "Pro-abortion".
NOM, casts gay marriage as a "Serious threat to marriage and family"
The military casts gay servicemen as a threat to order and moral, with no evidence to support any of these claims. Yet this rhetoric sure whips up the rabidly fearful into a voting bloc, or a protest group etc.....

[blueken]

You can't beat an appeal to the lizard brain. Works everytime. All pickpockets create a distraction as they slip thier hand into you pocket. No new taxes! Credit default swap anyone? How about a nice sub prime loan? Look out, wmd's!

[Conk]

Fear is the government's middle name. The war on terror is just control and manipulation through fear. Populations have always lived in fear of their leaders, political and religious. Without fear, control is much harder.

[jstephenclark]

The biggest obstacle to gay rights is not the fearmongering of the far right. It is the sell-out triangulating of the Obama Administration.

[Gidster]

So thirty plus years of right wing demagoguery has not been as effective as 4 months of Obama's presidency?

Do you have another unsupportable claims?

[jstephenclark]

Last time I checked, right-wing demogagues are not in charge of either Congress or the Presidency. It's not a right-wing demogague who is refusing to do anything to end Don't Ask, Don't Tell. It's not a right-wing demogague who is continuing to funnel money to antigay religious groups and exempting them from nondiscrimination rules. It's not a right-wing demogague who refused to appoint one openly gay cabinet member. It's not a right-wing demogague who launched his administration with the prayer of an antigay bigot. And it's not a right-wing demogague who is giving cover to every right-wing hatemonger by proclaiming marriage to be a union between one man and one woman.

Put down your Kool-Aid and go read some Frank Rich: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/24/opinion/24rich.html?_r=1

[twofish]

I'm delighted that these people seem so fearful of advances in gay civil rights. All we have to do to twist their panties in a knot is do the right thing. Wonderful. (Of course, it isn't frightening the blabbermouths of the right, but they're hoping to instill fear into their followers.) They are fear-mongers because they think it will whip us all into line.

What the hell ever happened to "Give me liberty or give me death!"

or "Better to die on your feet than live on your knees!"

[tomasedison]

Are you scared enough to vote republican again ?

The GOP wants to keep you and your family good and scared.
You're easier to control that way.

[ElBruce]

That's pretty much it: Republicans are cowards. We've been bereft of actual courageous leadership since 9/11, and this is the result - failure across the board, both internationally and domestically.

[henrywolff]

Nobody in the WTC was afraid as they went to work on the morning of 9/11

[Richterscale]

Of course they weren't. Are you suggesting they should have been afraid?

[ketchupandfries]

Well put! Don't know if the Republicans have become the party of cowards, but they are surely the party of sore losers. The Obama/Biden administration has too many so-called conservatives so angry they can't see straight. But, they should not be counted out because they're a pugnacious bunch who now relishes their underdog status. If the Dems don't make good on promises and on making lasting, important changes (i.e. universal health care, a sensible, sustainable energy policy, etc.) the public will turn on them and put the Republicans back in office and in control. A fate too ugly to contemplate!