johnson's "Daisy" ad http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=63h_v6uf0Ao
On Jun 28, 7:56 am, MJ <[email protected]> wrote: > Fear-Mongering and ServitudeJames Bovard > July/August 2011 • Volume: 61 • Issue: 6 • > In his 1776 essay, “Thoughts on Government,” John Adams observed, “Fear is > the foundation of most governments; but it is so sordid and brutal a passion, > and renders men in whose breasts it predominates so stupid and miserable, > that Americans will not be likely to approve of any political institution > which is founded on it.” The Founding Fathers hoped the American people would > possess the virtues and strength to perpetuate liberty. Unfortunately > politicians over the past century have used trick after trick to send > Americans scurrying to politicians to protect them. > President Woodrow Wilson pulled America into World War I based on bogus > idealism and real fear-mongering. Evocations of fighting for universal > freedom were quickly followed by bans on sauerkraut, beer, and teaching > German in government schools. H. L. Mencken observed in 1918: “The whole aim > of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed and hence, clamorous to > be led to safetyby menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of > them imaginary.” In Mencken’s time he was often considered cynical. > Subsequent developments have proven Mencken to be a prophet. > The Democratic Party relied heavily on the fear card in the 1920 presidential > race. On the eve of the November vote that year Democratic presidential > candidate James Cox declared: “Every traitor in America will vote tomorrow > for Warren G. Harding!” Cox’s warning sought to stir memories of the “red > raids” conducted in 1919 and 1920 by Attorney General A. Mitchell Palmer, > during which thousands of anarchists, communists, and suspect foreigners were > summarily jailed and in many cases deported. The American people rejected Cox > and embraced Warren Harding’s promise of a “return to normalcy.” > President Franklin Roosevelt put “freedom from fear”atop the American > political agenda in his 1941 State of the Union address. But FDR’s political > legacyespecially Social Securityhas institutionalized fear-mongering in > presidential and congressional races. Democrats perennially portray > Republicans as planning to yank life support from struggling seniors. > For almost 50 years American politicians have used television ads to spur > dread, most famously in the 1964 “Daisy” ad for Lyndon Johnson’s campaign. > The ad showed a young girl, in the words of Jim Rutenberg in theNew York > Times, “picking the petals off a daisy before the screen was overwhelmed by a > nuclear explosion and then a mushroom cloud and Mr. Johnson declared, ‘These > are the stakes.’” The ad did not specifically claim that Barry Goldwater, the > Republican nominee, would annihilate the human race, but the subtle hint > wafted through. Though this ad only aired once, it instantly became a legend. > Whipping up fear was the flipside of President Bill Clinton’s “feeling your > pain” political style. Clinton fanned people’s fear of guns, militias, and > life without medical insurance. At the same time, the Clinton administration > stretched the power of government on all frontsfrom concocting new > prerogatives to confiscate private property to championing FBI agents’ right > to shoot innocent Americans to bankrolling the militarization of local police > forces. Clinton was the Nanny State champion incarnate, teaching Americans to > look to government for relief from every peril of daily lifefrom > unpasteurized cider to leaky basements. As long as the President seemed to > care about average Americans, his abuses were largely forgotten. (The 1996 > Republican presidential candidate, Sen. Bob Dole, also promised to provide > voters with “freedom from fear” via untying “the hands of the police.”)Fear > and BushThe 2004 race was the most fear-mongering presidential campaign in > modern American history. In his acceptance speech at the Republican National > Convention, George W. Bush referred to terror or terrorism 16 times. Bush > reelection campaign television ads showed firemen carrying a flag-draped > corpse from the rubble at Ground Zero in New York and a pack of wolves coming > to attack home viewers as an announcer warned that “weakness attracts those > who are waiting to do America harm.” (One commentator suggested that the ad’s > message was that voters would be eaten by wolves if John Kerry won.) Just > before Election Day a senior GOP strategist told theNew York Daily Newsthat > “anything that makes people nervous about their personal safety helps Bush.” > People who saw terrorism as the biggest issue in the 2004 election voted for > Bush by a 6 to 1 margin. Moises Naim, editor ofForeign Policy, observed that > the Bush campaign was “using the fear factor almost exclusively. This is a > highly researched decision with all the tools of public opinion management. > It’s nothing but a reflection that it works.” > Bogus terror alerts might have made the difference in the 2004 election. Robb > Willer of the Sociology and Small Groups Laboratory at Cornell University > examined the relationship between 26 government-issued terror warnings > reported in theWashington Postand Bush’s approval ratings. “Each terror > warning from the previous week corresponded to a 2.75 point increase in the > percentage of Americans expressing approval for President Bush,” Willer > concluded. Bush beat Kerry by 2.4 percentage points in the popular vote. > Former Homeland Security chief Tom Ridge later admitted that many of the 2004 > alerts were unjustified. The Cornell study also found a “halo effect”: > Americans’ approval of Bush’s handling of the economy also rose immediately > after the announcement of new terror warnings, Willer reported. Apparently > the more terrorists were allegedly poised to attack America, the better job > Bush was doing. > Voters in 2004 could choose whether they would be killed by terrorists if > they voted for Kerry or whether they would be left destitute and tossed out > in the street if they voted for Bush. Boston University professor Tobe > Berkovitz commented to theWashington Post: “It’s not surprising that both > campaigns are looking for the leverage point: scaring the hell out of the > American public about what would happen if the other guy wins.” But the more > an election is about fear, the more the winner will presume to be entitled to > all the power he claims to need to combat the threat. > In his 2005 State of the Union address Bush declared: “We will pass along to > our children all the freedoms we enjoy. And chief among them is freedom from > fear.” The Founding Fathers would have derided the notion of politicians > giving citizens “freedom from fear.” And they would have denounced the notion > that this new-fangled freedom is superior to the freedoms the U.S. government > had pledged to respect for more than 200 years. > After promising freedom from fear a politician can always invoke polls > showing widespread fears to justify seizing new power. The natural result of > making freedom from fear the highest freedom is that any policy that reduces > fear can be portrayed as pro-freedom. Bush claimed that to keep Americans > safe he had to suspend habeas corpus and detain any suspected terrorist in > perpetuity based solely on his unproven assertions. Bush authorized the CIA > to use waterboarding and other methods of torture on detainees. He ordered > the National Security Agency to launch a massive illegal wiretapping program > that eavesdropped on thousands of Americans’ phone calls and emails without > warrants. Yet Bush remained a great champion of freedomat least in the eyes > of his supporters. > The political mass production of insecurity is a dominant trait of our age. > The easiest way for rulers to destroy the leashes the Constitution imposed on > them is to make voters think they must choose: “We can obey the Constitution > or we can prevent you from all being killed. What is it going to be?” > Rising fear can also undermine the freedom of speech that is a bulwark > against government abuse. To the extent people desperately cling to faith in > the leader to save them from all perils, they develop an intolerance to > anyone who points out government follies or falsehoods. The Bush 2004 > reelection campaign did all it could to fan such intolerance. Stumping around > the nation for Bush, former New York City police commissioner Bernie Kerik > told audiences in the final months of the campaign: “Political criticism is > our enemy’s best friend.” As criticism is suppressed government becomes more > incorrigible. Eventually the mistakes that could have been corrected cheaply > early on become catastrophic national failures.Fear and ObamaPresident Obama > has picked up the fear-mongering relay baton with his attempts to frighten > Americans about health care, global warming, economic collapse, and > government shutdowns. Obama has also invoked the fear card to sanctify > bombing bad guys anywhere and everywhere. > Government fear-mongering creates a downward politico-psychological spiral. > The more fearful people become the more gullible they will be. British > philosopher John Stuart Mill warned in 1842: “Persons of timid character are > the more predisposed to believe any statement, the more it is calculated to > alarm them.” It is almost irrelevant whether 10 or 20 or 30 percent of the > citizenry can see through government’s fraudulent warnings. In a democracy as > long as enough people can be frightened, all people can be ruled. > In the same way that some battered wives cling to their abusive husbands, the > more debacles the government causes the more some voters cling to rulers. The > craving for a protector drops an iron curtain around the mind, preventing a > person from accepting evidence that would shred his political security > blanket. In the days after the 9/11 attacks polls showed a doubling in the > number of people who trusted government to “do the right thing.” The media > fanned this blind faithas if trust in government was the high road to public > safety. The Bush administration exploited the trust to unleash itself at home > and abroad, and the nation is still paying the costs of its post-9/11 > infatuation with government. > Bogus fears can produce real servitude. The Founding Fathers expected the > American people to bravely stand up for their rights if their rulers trampled > the law. Citizens cannot cower on cue without forfeiting any possibility of > keeping government on a leash. If this nation is to have a rebirth of > liberty, it must begin with a rebirth of > courage.http://www.thefreemanonline.org/featured/fear-mongering-and-servitude/ -- Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
