EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
The Mythical Potency of Terrorism Fear-Mongering
The New York Times Editorial Page today asserts a commonly held belief among the political and media class:
An election is coming, so the Republicans are trying to scare Americans by making it appear as if the Democrats don't care about catching or punishing terrorists.
It's nonsense, of course, but effective. The be-very-afraid approach helped former President George W. Bush ram laws through Congress that chipped away at Americans' rights. He used it to get re-elected in 2004. Now the Republicans are playing the fear card for the fall elections.
That Terrorism fear-mongering has long been a central GOP political tactic is beyond dispute, but its current efficacy is far from clear. Just consider a new Washington Post poll released today. After months of GOP and media pummeling of Obama for being generally "soft on terror" and specifically for the crime of using the rule of law against (some) accused Terrorists, Americans (a) approve of Obama's "handling of the threat of terrorism" by a margin of 56-39 (his highest rating by far on any single issue); (b) approve of Obama's terrorism polices more so over the past couple of months (since the Christmas Day bomber incident) than they did previously; and (c) trust Obama more than the GOP to handle "the threat of terrorism" by a margin of 47-42 (though that gap has closed modestly in recent months). The poll does show that more Americans than ever before (55-39) want 9/11 defendants tried in military commissions rather than in civilian courts -- hardly a surprise given that even the Obama administration has embraced military commissions -- but the constant attacks on Obama's alleged "softness on terror" has had very little effect on his political standing.
Even more compelling evidence is found in the 2006 and 2008 elections. As I documented at length, the centerpiece of Karl Rove's 2006 midterm strategy was to depict the Democrats as "soft on terror" by virtue of their alleged opposition to warrantless eavesdropping, military commissions, and torture (he arranged votes on those issues right before the election) -- yet the Republicans were crushed in that election in one of the most humiliating defeats of the last several decades, losing control of both houses of Congress. Included among the GOP incumbents who suffered the most resounding defeats were those who relied most on Terrorism fear-mongering. And in 2008, Obama repeatedly vowed to roll back the defining Bush/Cheney Terrorism policies, to restore "our values," and was elected rather easily. While Terrorism fear-mongering was undoubtedly potent in the few years after 9/11, and still works on a part of the population even today, its efficacy as a political weapon is vastly overrated. Throughout the Bush years, media figures routinely claimed that the public overwhelmingly supported Bush/Cheney "terrorism" policies about which Americans were, in fact, largely split down the middle (or even opposed), including warrantless eavesdropping, the Iraq War and torture policies.
Why does this conventional political and media wisdom persist even in the face of fairly strong empirical data negating it? There are three primary reasons, I believe: (1) a substantial faction of the coddled DC and NYC-based media and political class is genuinely petrified of Terrorists, has long been more frightened of the threat than the average American, and -- as they always do -- project their own biases and belief system onto the electorate, pretending that they remain above-it-all, objective and merely describing how "the real people" think while, in reality, masquerading their own beliefs and fears under the banner of "how real Americans think"; (2) to affirm the notion that fear-mongering works is to pressure the political class into maintaining core Bush/Cheney policies (you abandon them at your political peril), policies which the media class largely supported and still support; and (3) media elites maintain a deeply patronizing view of "real Americans" (those ignorant, easily-led American masses -- the ones over there -- are constantly manipulated by primitive fear-based tactics). The myth that fear-mongering is some sort of all-powerful political tactic also allows loyalists of various political leaders to excuse bad policies and bad actions (be a "pragmatist": you can't expect him to reverse these Bush policies or vote for that bill because if he opposes those things, he'll lose re-election; Democrats supported those bad policies not because they agree with them (perish the thought) but because they'd lose the election if they didn't, etc. etc.).
Fear-mongering obviously worked wonders for the Republicans in the several years following 9/11, but those attacks took place more than eight years ago, and the potency of those tactics have diminished substantially. The false claim to the contrary persists because it serves the various interests of those who continue to perpetuate it.
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
29 Comments so far
Show AllBut the American people too often deserve the contempt the Fawning Corporate Media has for them. They ARE boobs too much of the time. Prone to follow as in a mob rather than think for themselves. Pay little attention. Focus too much on wasteful things.
So number 3 is quite justified -- if insulting.
Gary
“I think it's about time we voted for senators with breasts. After all, we've been voting for boobs long enough.”
-- Claire Sargent
Not to worry, another black-op will be unleashed soon.
"...but those attacks took place more than eight years ago, and the potency of those tactics have diminished substantially."
Yes Brian, I hope we're both wrong. All of the princes of darkness now use pre-emptive strikes in the media to maintain the status quo (eg. "climategate".) Perhaps those that suspect like we do should pre-emptively question the origin of the perpetrators, should another well-timed "attack" occur.
Just by witnessing the actions of Bush/Chaney and the neocon zealots over the last ten years I believe that there is nothing, no matter how despicable and inhumane, that they would not hesitate to do to achieve their ends.
Cheney still has his address book.
Just because he no longer operates out of the WhiteHouse, he still has a secure undisclosed location. He still has the apparatus of the Fourth Branch and still has all the money his operations will ever need. And, due to the past eight years of clandestine ops, he has the goods on a lot of people in strategic places in and out of government and the military. And he has operatives still in other countries as well. The Underwear Bomber and the follow-on "bin Laden" message had all the earmarks of their previous operations. They need to keep the illusion of a war on trrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr going so they can escape prosecution.
We will not be safe until Cheney is incarcerated or dead and his network is dismantled. It is the core of international trrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrsm.
Sioux Rose
CV: Your points have merit. Interesting post.
..."a substantial faction of the coddled DC and NYC-based media and political class is genuinely petrified of Terrorists..."
You can bet that every one of our congressmen remembers what happened to Paul Wellstone for crossing Cheney...
Anthrax.
More like plane crash.
Instead, as I paraphrased on the morning of 9/11/01; "Remain calm, and carry on".
Wow, the diminishing returns of the boys who cried "wolf". Brilliant cutting edge article Glenn. You are about 8 years too late with this news, but better late than never.
Yes I am admittedly a bit bitter, Greenwald defended the SCOTUS decision and the right of corporations to unlimited "free speech". He supports corporations defined as legal persons, and money as free speech.
"socialist"
While I usually agree with your assessments, I think you need to carefully read the 1st Amendment.
Greenwald did not so much "defend" the SCOTUS decision as he correctly pointed out that the 1st Amendment does not limit who can claim "free speech". The only parts of the 1st Amendment which specifically are listed as rights of "persons" are the right to "peaceable" assembly and the right to "petition" the Government.
The Constitution has numerous examples of vague language regarding people's rights. Carefully read, the Constitution is rather disturbingly inaccurate.
I can't help but wonder to what extent this was deliberately done. I guess we only need to ask the native peoples.
Bidrbrain Alley:
Please don't get me wrong, I do agree with that. The Const. was designed and formulated by Anglo-Saxon men of wealth according to enlightement and liberal principles, which held that only white wealthy men had the capacity to think rationally. Thus, the only logical conclusion for them was to empower those white, wealthy males.
You raise an excellent point about the vague language (and thus the power of the judicial branch to "interpret" that language in wildly different ways. The history of SCOTUS decisions illustrates that all too well.
Admittedly, I was being bitter about all this.
Sioux Rose
Mr. Greenwald left out #4: The fear generates public acceptance for a strong military, thus feeding the same awful MIC BEAST that Ike warned citizens about. I am AMAZED that he didn't connect the dots by following where their logical sequence (items 1-3) lead! Just as it was recently published that the military budget equates with the sacred cow whose name no political entity will dare speak, the glaring omission of WHY all the terrorist mumbo jumbo is drummed up leads invariably to this dark source. And yes, the MIC is the muscle behind global corporate capitalism in its quest to make itself the chief "ownership society," others claim to their own indigenous resources, be damned. There could be no McDonalds without McDonnell-Douglas style geopolitics on steroids!
Siouxrose February 10th, 2010 1:01 pm -- I think I'm with you on this one. Why didn't Greenwald mention that the MIC is fueled and sustained by fear mongering about terrorism? Gone are Hitler, MAD, and the Communist Chinese threat. Terrorism is the new raison d'etre for the MIC. It's well to recall Eisenhower's words as he said goodbye to the presidency:
"In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together."
Sioux Rose
MANNING: In this instance I think the "case" I present (Mars rules) is difficult to argue against, as per its existence, given the ready supply of fiscal fuel fed to its incessant, insatiable flames, a vampire to our collective resources.
PETER P: Thank you for the head's up, too.
All the experts agree: America’s enemies are certain to launch attacks on “the homeland” in the near future. Terrorists foreign and domestic are plotting, as we read, to shoot up shopping centers and incinerate airplanes because they hate us. Luckily, Obama’s people are protecting us, mainly by invading our privacy, but we’re OK with that if it makes us safer. “What’s in your shorts?” the attendant might soon inquire. “C-4 yourself,” a saucy passenger might reply.
Why are the experts so sure of an attack? Could it be that our own leaders have set events in motion that make an attack likely? Certainly, that was what happened on September 11, 2001, when the Air Force was kept on the ground while airliners were allowed to crash into buildings. Profiteers and government officials have been reaping the perquisites of warfare ever since. Maybe we’re not scared enough to keep the security industry flush and are in need of a little booster.
Or are the experts sure of an attack simply because we so richly deserve it? We’ve been visiting death and destruction on foreigners for most of the present century, for no good reason except to steal their resources. Ordinary citizens can’t say we didn’t know what was happening (as old Germans typically point out when reminded of the death camps). We know everything. We’ve seen pictures of our torture victims. We cheered the trashing of Baghdad and Fallujah. And we can’t say we were powerless to do anything. We voted for violence over and over again. Nine-eleven’s a garden party compared to what divine justice could have in store for us.
Our government and media would have us believe that the Fruit of the Loom bomber has us spooked. Wouldn’t we like to torture him and his buddies, and aren’t we nostalgic now for the old waterboarding days? Two wars weren’t enough. Terorists take notice: We kill people in the remotest reaches of Pakistan and laugh about it afterwards. Don’t screw with us. Our kids can’t find work, and they’ll be just as happy to take up a rifle and kill yours if we make it worth their while.
In self-defense, mind you. Because we’re afraid. Because our government tells us we’re in danger. From things we can’t see. We cross city streets fearlessly, drive 90 whenever we can, eat fat by the gob, and soak ourselves in beer a couple of times a week, but we’re scared to go out because there might be a terrorist lurking. Yeah. Right.
There are people who live in constant fear, but most people frighten appropriately, when there is evidence of danger. Fear is in our nature, and we can’t survive without it, but irrational fear–of terrorist attack, for instance–is another matter. It’s a maladjustment, and it runs counter to our values. Timidity is not a virtue.
We ought to be offended at our government’s incessant whining about the danger we’re in. Life goes on. This preoccupation with “security” is like having a baby monitor in your bedroom: a bit much. People are afraid, realistically, of losing their jobs, not of getting wasted by a stranger. It’s time for us to quit coddling the prozac crowd and show a little spunk.
Excellent post.
give your brain a fighting chance...turn off your tv...
the television will not be revolutionized.
I am not certain i am understanding Greenwald's point.
I think the reason obama's approval on handling these issues is high, is because he handle's it just as the previous administration has. What is the difference?
Agree with you. Not sure of Greenwald's point. The reason the Republican fear-mongering hasn't been as successful on Obama is that he is also doing the same fear-mongering as Bush, eg., Iran, Taliban, Al-Qaeda, Hamas. Obama's pre-election claim to talk to so-called enemies was just rhetoric. Fear-mongering against the public in the cold war with the USSR, Vietnam, Korea, Honduras (Reagan error), fear of Mexican's crossing the border, gays, ethnic groups... has worked to define US policy and spending.
But...but...but, I'm so sc...sca...scared. OMG, I just wet my Depends™!
Good article. But let's not forget another important reason the media pushes these ideas: Fear sells soap! And it's really cheaper to run than actual news programing.
Am i missing something?? I was NEVER scared of the "terrorists" and neither was anybody I know. and I know a lot of people. I actually don't know anyone that did not see through the Orwellian sham.
It seems only the authorities were in a lather about it all. Of course they have much to gain.
I'm so sick of this charade, with all these bloated idiots screaming about "keeping america safe" it's all just pathetic and embarassing.
Greenwald, last week: “Susan Collins Spreads Central MYTH About the Constitution”
Greenwald, this week: “The MYTHICAL Potency of Terrorism Fear-Mongering” - and - “The MYTH that fear-mongering is some sort of all-powerful political tactic ...”
Greenwald again reduces MYTH to nothing but a mistaken or outmoded belief.
Consistently affirming that he — like most Americans — is not only unable to distinguish between myth, and the interpretation thereof —
But ignorantly misuses the term in exactly the way that the dark side wants ...
Which, in turn, goes precisely to the core of why the dark side continues to prevail.
I confess. I'm "soft on terror."
I'm still trying to figure out what I'm "hard on."
Billions of wasted dollars for Homeland Security? Bend over, drop trow and spread your cheeks. Standard procedure.
Please help me Mordechai! I feel so lost. Dystopia has been documented by literature. Arthur Koestler for one. Kafka.
Which is worse, and the comparison is invidious: cops with tasers and cattle prods if I protest or the unknown infinitesimal possibility that somebody who is more pissed off than I am may attack me because they hate my slavery?
-30-
Greenwald must have been daydreaming when he wrote this article.
His 3 reasons shgould be at the bottom of the list.
The primary reason Terrorism is overblown is that its blows up the military budget.
Profit for Lazy very rich elites with very deadly bad habits that can not think of something better.
Sioux Rose has got it right "Terrorism is the new raison d'etre for the MIC."
Easy money the old fashion way, bombs like fire crackers; the more Holidays/Wars the better for business.
Terrorism is just an overblown excuse!
When the Russians proved to be no better or no worse than the west's own criminals, a new bugbear had to be found.
The choice was between Martians and ter'rists.
Being essentially peace-loving, the Martians refused to coöperate,
Fournier---
Really fine writing. Esp. your closing lines...
"... Timidity is not a virtue.
"We ought to be offended at our government’s incessant whining about the danger we’re in. Life goes on. This preoccupation with “security” is like having a baby monitor in your bedroom: a bit much. People are afraid, realistically, of losing their jobs, not of getting wasted by a stranger. It’s time for us to quit coddling the prozac crowd and show a little spunk."
Meanwhile, I know this was not your intent, but I would posit that Prozac and its chemical cousins are in the long run far more a threat than is al-Quaida.
Related: it's not just the government telling us "about the danger we're in." If Big Pharma had their way we'd be continuously prostrate on a medical bed with a thermometer up our rectums. Oh, I forgot, that's Old Medicine. Today it's all, er, digital!
Keep it up...
-30-