Fear and Loathing

Submitted by ed2291 on June 19, 2011 - 11:12am

Fareed Zakaria in his recent book (1) makes several good suggestions, but the interesting point is what he says should be the first step and precursor to anything else. He says we must stop the fear and loathing. This certainly strikes a chord with me. Republicans seem to believe they can use their own set of facts and emotion to rebut any argument making a rational discussion impossible. Democrats are no better in their rabid defense of Obama and terror of seriously discussing issues. Both resort to name calling rather than issues. (I would like to say the democrats are better than the republicans in this area, but they are not. I have been accused of everything from being a nut to being a communist to spying for the Republican Party because I question Obama’s policies. This even from people I thought were my friends who I had worked with on campaigns.)

Examples abound for both parties. Republican Romney asked, “Are we monitoring (mosques)? Are we wiretapping?”(2) Rudy Giuliani repeatedly shouted while campaigning, “They hate you!” and told students at Oglethorpe University in Atlanta, “They don’t want you to be in this college!”(3)

Examples also abound for democrats who seem to excuse their many failings by saying republicans would be even worse. (Be afraid! Be very afraid!) And yet democrats in the HOR and Senate voted very solidly to extend the Patriot Act, once again suspending the constitution. Pelosi and Reid tried to prevent debate and accused those who supported the opposition of supporting terrorism. Obama, who had campaigned as a Harvard trained civil rights lawyer, signed it from France without ever breathing a word of criticism. It is worth asking what threat are we under that is worth suspending the constitution for 13 years? Is it worse than the Civil War or World War II? Really? How about the War of 1812 where the British burned Washington, D.C., the President had to flee the city, and Dolly Madison the First Lady stayed behind to save copies of the Declaration of Independence and Constitution before fleeing? We did not then suspend the constitution. Are times really that much worse now?

It is time to consider quotes from Fareed, FDR, and even John McCain.

Americans don’t like and are tired of other countries taking cheap shots at us so that this “country is unfairly turned into a punching bag. They are right. But get over it. There are many, many advantages to being a superpower. It has some costs as well. Those costs can be easily lowered by attentive diplomacy.” (4)

Franklin Delano Roosevelt said, “The only thing we have to fear is fear itself. Nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror.”(5)

John McCain said, “Get on the damn elevator! Fly on the damn plane! Calculate the odds of being harmed by a terrorist. It is still about as likely as being swept out to sea by a tidal wave.” (6)

There are costs to giving into fear and loathing. One is the increasing inability to discuss or agree on anything while other countries make the hard choices we used to be known for and pass us by. Another is we may end up as England - declining as a world power and with a declining standard of living. The historian Correlli Barnett wrote that England in the mid-nineteenth century moved away “from the practical and reason-based society that had brought about the industrial revolution and toward one dominated by religious evangelicalism, excessive moralism, and romanticism.”(7) Sound familiar? Do we really want to follow this path?

I am a policy wonk and like analyzing and writing about policy. No matter how clearly I write or how much research I do, however, it will not be effective as long as my potential reader is overcome with fear and loathing. If we cannot overcome the fear and loathing that seems to have taken place in our citizenry, we are headed rapidly towards third world status.
See The Election March of the Trolls.
1) Fareed Zakaria, “The Post-American World Release 2.0,” (W.W. Norton & Company, Inc., 2011)
2) Zakaria, p. 276.
3) Zakaria, p. 276.
4) Zakaria, p. 274.
5) Zakaria, p. 275.
6) Zakaria, p. 277 from McCain’s book “Courage Matters”.
7) Zakaria, p. 262 referring to Corelli Barnett, “The Collapse of British Power” (New York, Morrow, 1972).

Comments

Submitted by Jeff on June 19, 2011 - 6:02pm.

Hitler and his use of fear

Ed,

It would be quite illuminating if you would read up on how Hitler used fear to rule and then make some comparisons to what is going on in this country. In no way am I saying that there is anyone in this country as evil as Hitler, but I am saying that studying the Nazi era can be most enlightening. And chilling.

Submitted by Lafayette on June 21, 2011 - 7:00pm.

WHY ARE WE SO ANGRY?

We are angry because we thought Obama would bring about reformational change in government and yet it has been simply mediocre step-wise improvements. We believed the man's message and now we feel deceived and are therefore bewildered.

But, is he really to blame? After all, he was not elected King with some Divine Right by which, abracadabra, all that is wrong in Washington was magically transformed. Have we forgot that our national governance is constituted of three branches - the Legislative, the Judicial and the Executive?

Did we not understand that he would have to reckon, mostly, with a legislature that was not automatically Democrat or even progressive? Did we not understand that the Republicans would do their utmost, from the very beginning, to regain power? And they succeeded in the mid-terms to recapture the HofR, where all money-bills must initiate?

Have we forgot that in the Senate, the voters of Massachusetts decided to replace Ed Kennedy with a Republican, thus taking back from the Democrats the "super-majority" needed to end a filibuster that kills legislation?

Do we realize that in the mid-terms barely 48% of the voting population bothered to vote? And let's presume that they voted out of anger and frustration at the fact that the Great Recession - the worst in 80 years since the Great Depression - was not over and jobs were still being either lost or jeopardized?

A recession in America, if mild, will last at least two years. A hard-recession, which is what we had, takes at least 4 years to mend. Did Jack 'n Jill America not understand this fact? That this recession was not of Obama's making? That it was handed to him on a platter by one of the most inept administrations in American history?

No, American voters understood none of that. And they made the challenge of reformational change all the more difficult. Why?

Because the sad fact of the matter is that the American population has become complacent. It cannot think beyond the boob-tube and understands little of our arcane and complex mechanism of governance. Who can blame them given the dysfunction of LaLaLand on the Potomac.

MY POINT

Hobbling this PotUS has been the Republican strategic plan since Day One. Obama will get no further Stimulus Spending funds, which is the only way out of a recession. Because of the Republicans' misguided (and false) belief that Fiscal Austerity is necessary. They do not want the unemployment figures to be lower, so that the anger will be maintained and Americans will foolishly vote Republican next year in reaction.

And the poor, the homeless or jobless - what are they, after all? For the Republicans, just road-kill on the highway of life.

Submitted by ed2291 on June 23, 2011 - 7:37pm.

Be specific

We have many specific complaints against Obama. See http://stpeteforpeace.org/obama.html which has a good summary. You may also look at the blog here or check under Volunteer Area on the platform. As a reminder for 2 years he had 59 senators and the House of Representatives by about 40 votes. He still has the senate and nothing is keeping him from exercising his right of free speech. Bush with far less did whatever the hell he wanted to. We do not need to be educated. If you disagree with a specific point, by all means bring it up, but generalities about republicans being evil and we have no choice are not sufficient. Your description of life in France and Europe is convincing. Obama has not acted or appointed administrators with that vision, but has continued on and expanded Bush policies.

Submitted by Jeff on June 23, 2011 - 8:33pm.

Response

Well, now, I tell you, Lafayette. You have a fair number of good points in there - low voter turnout, Republicans seeking to regain power, voters not being able to think past the boob tube ... But I really disagree with you when you imply that Obama is a progressive. He is not. He is a carefully groomed tool of the elite that runs this country. Americans were sick of a macho man who butchered the English language and terrified of what Sarah Palin represented. Yet, Obama only won by about 2%. Those who voted for him were captivated by his oratory and overlooked his positions on issues, thinking that, after all, he was a politician and that he would actually act on his "change we can believe in" slogan. He fooled lots of people and that is what we are upset about. Face it, Obama is a Republican - his policies are no better than Nixon's. They're actually worse - at least Nixon got us out of Vietnam. We need to wake up and start working to elect progressives at all levels of government, from city hall to the Federal government.

Submitted by Lafayette on June 24, 2011 - 2:05pm.

The Progressive Road In America

I would like to say the democrats are better than the republicans in this area, but they are not. I have been accused of everything from being a nut to being a communist to spying for the Republican Party because I question Obama’s policies. This even from people I thought were my friends who I had worked with on campaigns

The progressive road in American politics is difficult to tred. Most of the components on a Progressive Agenda (or Manifesto, take your pick) are what the Rabid Right call "pinko, commie, socialist bunk".

I live in France. Here's what is "bunk":
* Universal Health Care is bunk. About 70% of all primary remedial health-care is assumed by the French National Health System (NHS). The rest is covered by Mutualized Insurance that, for an entire family, costs between 150/200 dollars per month. And, if one contracts a serious long-term illness (cancer, HIV, etc.) your Primary Care GP and a Specialist Physician will substantiate the illness claim to the NHS, which assumes the total cost. (In the UK, btw, the coverage is at 100% by its National Health Service.)
* Very-low-cost tertiary education is bunk. Tertiary education consists of vocational, college or university level courses. Tuition is rarely above $1000 per school year and the student must pay often for Room&Board. This is truly, “no child left behind” - if they have the motivation to better their lot in life by means of an education or training.
* State-subvented preferred mortgages (meaning much lower interest rates) for young couples is bunk. This allows access to residential ownership to young couples in order to wean them away from rentals when starting a family. This is no “hand out”, both couples must show they are professionally capable of making mortgage payments, that is, their mortgage payments must be not more than one –third of their combined revenues net of other credit payments. (France generates no “subprime loans” and predatory lending is not allowed.)
* Abortion is paid for by NHS - no questions asked. (Depending upon length of fetus maturity.) If a physician will not perform the act, s/he is obliged to refer the patient to a doctor who will.
* A working mother has the right to remain six-months with her child (and is paid UI during this period). Upon her decision to return to work, the employer is obliged to either give her back her old job or find her another position. (There is some thought of extending this privilege to the couple's choice, that is, either the father or mother of the child as exists in Sweden.)
* Nurseries are established by local authorities and their cost is minimal, thus allowing working couples the freedom to both work. If one cannot be found, the cost of a "Nanny", who cares for children in their residence is compensated partly by the state. (The processes is regulated and overseen/quality audited by state authorities.)

The above is just a taste of the “Progressive Agenda” embarked upon by a majority of European countries over the past six decades since Europe emerged from the ruins of WW2. The Rabid Right would argue that the above are what “breaks the bank” in Europe. In fact, European Universal Health Care costs from one-half to one-third per capita that of the US. (See this OECD info-graphic here.)

MY POINT

Sociologists call the above “Social Investments”. Just like any business investment, they are expected to make a return. That return, I suggest, our founding fathers intended to mean the “pursuit of happiness”.

But I’ll settle just for the “pursuit of well-being”. Wouldn’t you?

You can help us spread the word about the New Progressive Alliance and help grow the movement, by embedding the clickable NPA Logo on your blog or site!

Copy the embed code from the text box below, and paste it where you'd like the badge to appear on your site.

Show your support of the NPA to your site visitors, and they'll be able to get here with a click!

Embed Code