Fear Works Quicker Than Hope

Andrew Sullivan calls the Clintons the "horror film that won't go away." An Obama aide is dismissed for calling Hillary a "monster." Hillary uses scare tactics such as the "3a.m. ad," a variant on the Goldwater "Daisy Girl" ad to frighten voters, and the press almost universally rebukes her. Why has Hillary begun to use the fear card against Obama and allow herself to be painted in such bleak terms by the cognoscenti?

Because to paraphrase Oliver Stone; "Fear is good. Fear is right, fear works. Fear clarifies and cuts through." It's working well against the Obama campaign right now and you can sure expect more of it from an increasingly desperate Clinton campaign.

It took Google a little over two years to go from a share price of $180 to $716, all based on "hopes" for Google's bright future. "Fears" of an ad slowdown took Google's stock down nearly 300 points in the last 10 weeks.

Obama is the candidate of "hope," and it has served him well in the last 18 months. But in the final weeks of the campaign, as the Clintons tactically attempt to scare the electorate, Obama should be mindful that, as in the stock market, fear works quicker than hope.

Follow Ron Galloway on Twitter: www.twitter.com/rongalloway

Comments

[jdevienne]

06:12 PM on 03/10/2008

You do know that the daisy girl ad was an anti-Goldwater ad, right?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daisy_(television_commercial)

[D2D2]

04:05 PM on 03/10/2008

It is foolish indeed to even suggest that Senator Clinton's repugnant attacks and schizophrenic behavior over the course of this campaign all exists to inform and educate the public. But it is a certainty that the truth is scary at times. And if the Clinton campaign wants to "educate the public", how about releasing her tax information. Also, how about explaining the "Commander in Chief Test", and then explain why the public should believe that Senator Clinton passes this fictitious, contrived test.

The truth can be scary, that is true. But when you play upon the fears of the public in your delivery and when you distort the facts to favor your own self interests then we really aren't talking about the truth. Fear mongering is a tactic of the desperate and the egocentric.

With regard to Mr. Galloway's article, I concur, fear is quicker than hope. But, as with many short-term fixes, the negative impact is long term. The quick benefits realized by Senator Clinton through her unfortunate choice to appeal to fear perhaps gives her a bump in the short-term battle, but it will destroy her in the longer-term war. Moreover, fear offers no solutions and only serves to agitate. In fact, people make poorer choices when guided by fear. Alternatively, hope promotes positive thought and isnpires action for a better tomorrow.

I, for one, want a leader who will not choose the politically expedient over what appears the better choice, no matter how quick. And while I do believe that Senator Obama understands the point that you make in your article, I believe he runs his campaign betting that the American people will choose hope.

[lvdragonlady]

03:32 PM on 03/10/2008

In my view, Americans tend to be sheep, they follow 'whatever' they are told without taking the time to evaluate what they are being told. They would rather have someone 'tell' them what to think instead of thinking for themselves. They choose to go along with everyone else instead of standing up for what they, themselves, believe.

Wake up America and think for yourselves instead of letting the government tell you what to believe and what to fear.
I am an American but I have the sense to question instead of accepting what I hearl.

[trevor01]

03:15 PM on 03/10/2008

Hillary's campaign isn't trying to frighten but to educate the public. The truth is scary at times but that is no reason not to face it and deal with it.

[IntelligenceIsBliss]

03:45 PM on 03/10/2008

What a crock.

And they say Obama supporters are delusional.

[StephenSmoliar]

04:00 PM on 03/10/2008

Nevertheless, we have to ask whether or not the analogy between Obama and Google warrants consideration. The thing about the price of ANY stock being exchanged (not just Google's) is that IT HAS NO HARD SUBSTANTIVE VALUE, only reasons why a rational investor should expect the price to rise at a given rate. Whatever the Clinton camp may say, Obama DOES have a "resume" of accomplishments that can serve as a baseline against which rational voters can argue about its value. On the other hand as Marshall Grossman has pointed out here, a better baseline for such argument would be how both Obama and Clinton choose to "do their job" in the Senate between now and Convention time:

http://therehearsalstudio.blogspot.com/2008/03/putting-poetic-wisdom-into-practice.html

Either way, trying to compare Obama to a share of Google stock leads to an argument based on a specious analogy.