The Only Thing to Use is Fear Itself

[Rodeo]

How Low Will Bush Go?
President's Scare Tactics Demean Politics and Voters

By Eugene Robinson
Friday, November 3, 2006

If Democrats manage to take control of one or both houses of Congress on Tuesday, the reason will be that voters were not adequately roused into a state of heart-pounding, knee-knocking, teeth-chattering fear.

Not that Republicans haven't been trying. George W. Bush used to claim he was "a uniter, not a divider," but that was a long time ago. These days, he'd probably try to deny the quote the same way he tried to disown "stay the course." The Karl Rove formula for political victory has been to draw a bright line between "us" and "them" and then paint those on the other side not as opponents but as monsters.

Thus Bush openly accused those who disagree with his policy in Iraq of giving aid and comfort to the enemy. "The Democrat approach in Iraq comes down to this: The terrorists win and America loses," he said the other day.

Call me naive, but I never thought a president of the United States would stoop so low as to accuse current and prospective members of Congress -- a number of whom, by the way, are decorated war veterans, unlike Bush or anyone in his inner circle -- of being pro-terrorist. But this administration has so lowered the bar on political discourse in this country that it's now more of a limbo stick: How low can you go?

I've pointed out in earlier columns the difference between a leader who faces troubled times with a message of bravery and optimism -- Franklin D. Roosevelt's stirring words about the Great Depression, "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself," constitute perhaps the best example -- and a leader such as Bush who encourages people to be afraid because their fear is advantageous to him politically.

This goes beyond other scare tactics that have become standard practice. Republican candidates throughout the land are telling people that the Democrats "want to raise your taxes." The truth of the matter is that many Democrats question some of the Bush administration tax cuts because the benefits have gone so disproportionately to the very rich and because continuing to cut taxes when you're also throwing hundreds of billions of dollars at a long-running war is pure fiscal insanity. But in the context of today's political culture, this kind of distortion doesn't even warrant a raised eyebrow.

Republicans are also trying to demonize individuals, warning that if Democrats take control of the House, Nancy Pelosi (gasp!), who represents San Francisco (shudder!), will become speaker. Never mind that she is actually an effective and pragmatic politician, as evidenced by the fact that, days before the election, she has the Republicans playing defense.

"Wedge" issues are designed to invoke fear. As one would expect, Republicans have tried to portray the New Jersey Supreme Court decision on gay marriage -- which did not, by the way, endorse, mandate or even legalize gay marriage -- as some sort of mortal threat to family values from coast to coast. This effort has been oddly halfhearted, though. Maybe GOP strategists worry that stigmatizing homosexuality won't work so well in the wake of the Mark Foley scandal, which laid bare the party's essential hypocrisy. It's hard to portray the Democrats as the party of Sodom and Gomorrah now that everyone knows there are many powerful gay Republicans working on Capitol Hill.

None of this is pretty, and all of it demeans American politics. But claiming that "the terrorists win" if Democrats are elected to Congress -- a statement whose only conceivable purpose is to make Americans afraid -- is something entirely different. The president knows, and at times has acknowledged, that there are people of good will in both parties who differ with him on Iraq. He also knows, or should know, that fear diminishes us as a nation -- that fear appeals to our baser instincts, not our best ideals; that it makes us smaller, meaner, less noble.

He should know all this, but he uses fear anyway, because fear is effective. John Kerry may have chosen an inopportune time (or just the right moment, from the Republicans' perspective) to demonstrate his inestimable comedic timing and his finely tuned political ear. But while Kerry's recent gaffe produced some last-minute outrage, mere outrage probably isn't enough this time. The only thing that might work is fear, and so far not enough Americans have been made to quake in their boots.

I take that back: The president did say that Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld will serve out the remainder of his term. Run for your lives!

[lendaddy]

Boo!

[jluetjen]

Is this one of your compositions (Rodeo, is it Gene, or Eugene), or are you just spamming editorials into the OT Forum?

[Rodeo]

It's Eugene Robinson. Feel free to ignore if it threatens your worldview. Wouldn't want to read anything you might disagree with, right?

[Tim Hancock]

Yawn

[Rodeo]

I know. So what if the president accuses the oppositon party of being in bed with terrorists. I guess that's what we have come to expect in George Bush's America.

[Tim Hancock]

It is boring to me because I already know the left would rather "attempt" to appease terrorists rather than take a tough stance against them. Two points though for an early Friday morning "whine about Bush" post. Thanks for keeping up your image.

[Rodeo]

Originally posted by Tim Hancock
It is boring to me because I already know the left would rather "attempt" to appease terrorists rather than take a tough stance against them.

Like deploying our military in Iraq according to the orders of al Sadr?

You're delusional.

The fact that we are in Iraq taking orders from terrorists constitutes a "tough stance against them?"

[lendaddy]

Originally posted by Rodeo
president accuses the oppositon party of being in bed with terrorists.

I used to think you were just slinging your usual hyperbole when you exaggerated and warped things like this, but after last night where you criticized that article for claiming Obama was literally dancing with someone........well, lets just say I understand much better what we're dealing with.

He really doesn't get it guys, he's not being obstinate.

I'm not mocking you BTW (everyone has their gifts), I just really didn't know where you were coming from till now.

[Rodeo]

And the interesting thing is the fact that I have been 100 % right and you 100% dead wrong every step of the way means nothing to you.

Stay the course -- or whatever line the president is feeding you now.

[Jim Richards]

Didn't Eugene Robinson play free safety for the Packers back in the 90's?

[Tim Hancock]

Originally posted by lendaddy
I used to think you were just slinging your usual hyperbole when you exaggerated and warped things like this, but after last night where you criticized that article for claiming Obama was literally dancing with someone........well, lets just say I understand much better what we're dealing with.

He really doesn't get it guys, he's not being obstinate.

I'm not mocking you BTW (everyone has their gifts), I just really didn't know where you were coming from till now.

Len, I am guessing Obsessive/Compulsive Disorder.

[lendaddy]

Originally posted by Jim Richards
Didn't Eugene Robinson play free safety for the Packers back in the 90's?

I thought it was the Vikings?

[Jeff Higgins]

Originally posted by Tim Hancock
Maybe you need to get diagnosed Rodeo.

Background: Obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) is classified in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition (DSM-IV) as an anxiety disorder. It is characterized by distressing intrusive thoughts and/or repetitive actions that interfere with the individual's daily functioning. The DSM-IV criteria for OCD are as follows:


The individual expresses either obsessions or compulsions. Obsessions are defined by the following 4 criteria:

Recurrent and persistent thoughts, impulses, or images are experienced at some time during the disturbance as intrusive and inappropriate and cause marked anxiety and distress.

The thoughts, impulses, or images are not simply worries about real-life problems.

The person attempts to suppress or ignore such thoughts, impulses, or images or to neutralize them with some other thought or action.

The person recognizes that the obsessional thoughts, impulses, or images are a product of his/her own mind (not imposed from without as in thought insertion).

Compulsions are defined by the following 2 criteria:

The person feels driven to perform repetitive behaviors (eg, hand washing, ordering, checking) or mental acts (eg, praying, counting, repeating words silently) in response to an obsession or according to rules that must be applied rigidly.

The behaviors or mental acts are aimed at preventing or reducing distress or preventing some dreaded event or situation; however, these behaviors or mental acts either are not connected in a realistic way with what they are meant to neutralize or prevent or they are clearly excessive.

At some point during the course of the disorder, the person recognizes that the obsessions or compulsions are excessive or unreasonable. This does not apply to children.

The obsessions or compulsions cause marked distress; are time consuming (take >1 h/d); or significantly interfere with the person's normal routine, occupational or academic functioning, or usual social activities or relationships.

If another Axis I disorder is present, the content of the obsessions or compulsions is not restricted to it, such as preoccupation with food and weight in the presence of an eating disorder, hair pulling in the presence of trichotillomania, concern with appearance in body dysmorphic disorder, preoccupation with drugs in substance use disorder, preoccupation with having a serious illness in hypochondriasis, preoccupation with sexual urges in paraphilia, or guilty ruminations in the presence of major depressive disorder.

The disorder is not due to the direct physiologic effects of a substance or a general medical condition.

Specify with poor insight if, for most of the current episode, the person does not recognize that the symptoms are excessive or unreasonable.

In case anyone missed this the first time.

[lendaddy]

Nope, you were right:

"Eugene Robinson (born May 28, 1963) is an African-American former professional American football player who played free safety for the Seattle Seahawks from 1985-95, the Green Bay Packers (1996-1997), Atlanta Falcons (1998-1999), and Carolina Panthers in 2000."

[Drago]

Originally posted by lendaddy
I thought it was the Vikings?

\

It was the Packers, the Seahawks before that.

[Jim Richards]

ViQueens? Ack! What an insult!

[lendaddy]

Originally posted by Jim Richards
ViQueens? Ack! What an insult!

Look at Barry making him his b1tch

(Rodeo, that's just a figure of speech, don't take it literally).

[jluetjen]

Originally posted by Rodeo
It's Eugene Robinson. Feel free to ignore if it threatens your worldview. Wouldn't want to read anything you might disagree with, right?

It doesn't threaten anything of mine. If I ignore it (after reading it), it will be for a more fundimental reason -- because it doesn't make sense with the reality that I see and have experienced in my life.

I'm just kind of let down because I enjoy the intellectual discourse on this forum. That means people exchanging and exploring ideas. Slapping an editorial up that someone else wrote doesn't satisfy either of those concepts since it's not you communicating. You're just repeating an already published article with no additional value added. In my eyes, that makes you somewhat reduntant to the communiciation process, not to mention it belittles your own ability to create an original thought. After a while I'll just be conditioned to ignore you all together since you (yourself) are not saying anything, and you would have demonstrated the inability to contribute anything of value to the growth of culture and intellect in the world. If Eugene Robinson chose to join us here to discuss his ideas, I know that I'd appreciate his contribution.

[Jim Richards]

Originally posted by lendaddy
Look at Barry making him his b1tch

Still dreaming of glory days for the cowardly Lions? They'll always be losers, well, untill the day Rodeo becomes a neocon. Wanna hold your breath?