http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g_i9Bq2tntY&feature=related


On Jun 29, 9:55 am, plainolamerican <[email protected]> wrote:
> johnson's "Daisy" adhttp://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
>
> ...
>
> read more »

-- 
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.

Reply via email to