The Politics of Fear

I expect nothing else from the same ilk who attached a long string of firecrackers to the tails of the Clintons and from those who have made such careers off pseudo-super-patriotism (despite felony convictions, fighting on the wrong side of the war on drugs, sexual harrassment and stalking). 

Xenophism sells.  Just ask Lou Dobbs.  Hate sells, just ask the current leader of the GOP and his shadow cabinet the RNC. 

Would the guns and ammo dealers be raking in so much money without the baseless fears they have been fanning?  How many thousands of sucker sheep have fallen victim to that?

What really strikes me is how cowardly so many Americans were in the face of adversity, willingly signing over their rights and birthrights to thugs promising "security".  The same thugs who were asleep at the wheel on 9 September 2001.  The same thugs who ran from the smoke and flame.

As I specifically stated at the comments thread at my piece, The President's House in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, written in February 2008:

My opinion piece addresses funding that has been received and requested for the erection of a memorial at the President's House, in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

In the framework of this information, I have provided history that is specific to the events and the area written of in the opinion piece.

This opinion piece discusses persons specific to what occurred inMy the first capital of the United States of America in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

My piece is not a discussion about human trafficking or slavery that existed anywhere else during any time period other than the period of chattel slavery.

The commentary in this piece is a commentary on the precepts that laid the foundation for this nation while it held African people and its descendants as enslaved chattel for centuries.

Your perspective that there has been some attempt to indict one group over another is an opinion you are entitled to hold.

In this case, the first president of the United States assumed to own enslaved people of African descent and, in this instance, he was a White man, as happened to be the founding fathers of this nation. That is historical fact. If, in your view, that is seen as an indictment, so be it.

White male property owners, owning land and slaves, formulated the plans for this country, not even including White women as citizens with voting rights, with the circumstances involving the indigenous peoples, the so called Native Americans, being a whole other issue to be addressed.   

This opinion piece did not require any tangential reference to slavery in any other circumstances, in any other parts of the world, past or present, as it deals with the discovery of evidence that revealed there had been enslaved persons of African descent, who were used as part of the first president of the United States' household staff to aid in the functioning of the Philadelphia White House and the subsequent efforts to erect a monument that encompassed all that was known and has been discovered about the site.

I also stated :

As I stated, the elements that you've attempted to interject for your own purposes were not elements dealt with in my commentary nor are they part of my discussion currently at hand, which deals with specific events, the plans to erect the President's House memorial, specific persons, the so called founding fathers of the United States, specific place(s), Philadelphia, Pennsylvania and the United States and a specific time period, the period during America's history when it did not include African Americans as citizens.

As your feelings are your feelings, you are free to write your own article to deal with all you have tried to impose upon my commentary here and pursue the subject matter in whatever manner you choose to address it.

Your characterization, here at this thread, of my indignation at President Obama being labeled the Anti-Christ is incorrect, however you do feel the commentary running out there regarding him being so as "understandable" , which I find an interesting revelation.

I stated one of the fear mongering elements being promoted by elements of the religious Right Wing.

As I have stated in the comments from my piece in February and on numerous occasions at a number of my opinion pieces, and has been pointed out to you by a member of NowPublic staff, I am not required to include any thoughts or perspectives that you feel need inclusion in my opinion piece. It is my opinion piece.

As I have suggested elsewhere, and I suggest again, please feel free to write your own commentary, engaging in discussing whatever elements on whatever subject you see fit to include in your own efforts.

My commentary addressed mindless fear.

I did not state anything about opposition to President Obama for reasons of disagreement with policy choices or political actions and, had you read my commentary carefully, Roy, you would have read I did not name any group or individual(s) in my commentary other than 'conspiracy theorists' so, it is unclear who it is, according to the "some" you indicate and mention would say that I "demonized", other than the conspiracy theorists.   

The identifying criterion, offered for the discussion point in my commentary, was those who embraced fear.

Only my comments at the thread indicate specific groups, offered in response to your comments.  

Do not misquote or provide your incorrect understanding and assessment of what was written in my commentary when trying to defend your own views.

Discussing any perceived habits exhibited by myself is a form of a personal attack.

Roy, your comments have not approached any heated temperature in my estimation nor do I take issue with comments offered by readers unless they are off the mark, as are yours always when you wander off topic in attempts to bully me into writing my commentaries to your liking.

It is plainly stated in my commentary the type of fear I address, using President Roosevelt's quote which includes the phrase that clearly identifies :

" .... nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance.

Please familiarize yourself with the meaning of ad hominem attacks and flaming, which are not allowed at NowPublic.

Queenshart, if, as you state, you and Roy share the same opinion, I suggest you both consider either writing a commentary together or each attempt writing one on your own independently.

I am not rewriting my opinion piece. 

As this commentary has become a lightning rod for those seeking to reshape my opinion, I remind anyone reading, again, that:

It is plainly stated in my commentary the type of fear I address, using President Roosevelt's quote which includes the phrase that clearly identifies :

" .... nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance.

Again, I reinterate, concerns related to specific policy actions and the implementation of policy were not among the fears addressed here.

Taking issue with how President Obama and the government proceed in efforts to lead the country are legitimate and are not " .... nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror" .   

As I stated before, mindless fear, in my opinion, would be those types of things named by me above which included the alleged use of hypnosis by the President to make people do what he wants them to do, with these types of fears providing unnecessary static to already highly charged circumstances.

QueensHart, you cannot ask someone to re-write their opinion piece, because then it won't be their opinion piece any more, it would be your opinion piece. Please refrain from asking someone to re-write their work, that can be very offensive.

You have not given a single example to sustain your hypothesis.

To prove that some program or idea is fear mongering, you would have to prove that there was no reasonable basis for the program or idea and that, further, the party making the claim knew this and was acting in bad faith.

That is usually, but not always, impossible to do because no one has sufficient knowledge on the great questions of the day to certifiably know that what someone else proposes is simply abject self-interest.

And, further, everyone knows that fear mongering by both parties has gone on historically, but by what standard would today's be different?

By what standard did Barak Obama not use fear to get his super-pork barrel stimulus program, written by Pelosi and Reed,  passed, not a single dollar of which has been spent? The economy has been improving and this might sustain the idea that it wasn't necessary.

The republicans are likewise guilty of fear-mongering when proposals are made to practice meaningful trade restrictions with countries that do not have free-floating currencies and can close our factories here, outcompeting them by virtue of the manipulation of currency or when discussing ways to reform health care.

Thank you for your comments, Amy.

However, I was not asked to re-write my opinion piece. Asking indicates a request, almost equally as offensive.

It was stated that I "should", implying a duty or obligation, which you have addressed, saying it is not when writing an opinion piece.

If you don't like to see things become emotional, personal, attacks, don't insult someone lower down in your comment - I'm so tired of members insulting each other.

The trouble with insults is that you shut off all ability for a reasoned discussion because all the other person can see is the fact that you insulted them.

Well, thank you, Karen. By actually giving examples, you remedy the fault of not giving any. That, in itself, is an admission of the truth of my criticism.

Your personal comments really would by very, very irritating, though, K, if they did't make me smile.:)

Nowhere did I doubt that some fear-mongering was going on. What you do, and you do this consistently, is find the mite in the other's eye while missing the beam in your own.

The very first example you gave of racism and the fear of confronting the truth that I responded to was the attempted cover-up of tunnels from the stables next to the Philadelphia White House.

I pointed that that such cover-ups and too convenient cover-ups of history go both ways and that it was an especially egregious violation of the historic truth in "Roots", to have white men combing the African countryside to find and capture black slaves, when the truth is that black Muslim slave traders regularly captured black slaves and sold them to whoever had the money.

When I told that to American kids of all colors during "Black History Month", there were gasps, especially from the black kids. 

You deemed it irrelevant. Of course, it was irrelevant to someone only interested in the evil done to his side and not done by his side.

Now, as far as the fear-mongering on your side goes, the whole bank bailout bill, a program of great illegality and unconstitutionality begun under Bush using fear-mongering, was furthered by Obama by fear-mongering.

The whole AIG bonus scandal was a program of persecution that Obama did for entirely demagogue-ic reasons, since he should have damn well known that the bonuses had been put back in by his Sec of the Treas. Another example of fear-mongering on your side.

Obama has reduced our whole economic problem to being the result of a failed school system, a failed medical system and the lack of a good energy program.

That was pure fear-mongering.

The economy failed because the greedy Wall Streeters, demos and repubs, got together with Reid, Pelosi and Barney Rubble Frank, and greenlined low-cost loans to buy houses to people who didn't quality, while the right, Bush's administration, took a hands-off approach to the supervision and control of the whole "sell a morrgage to someone without qualifications", to its packaging as a AAA-rated deal by Moody's.

As far as the trifecta of schools, medicine and energy goes, we could cure ourselves of the school problems by restoring real authority, the medicine through preventive medicine, and the energy problem by drilling, using nuclear power (as Obama wants the Iranians to do) and then working on the various new methods and technologies which wil ultimately take over, such as bio-diesel from algae.

Fear-mongering is the reason that we don't hear nuclear power for our side EVER.

That rationale for the greatest power grab in our history is being fear-mongered by the left, not the right, for now.

So, the point is that your feeling of indignation about Obama being the "anti-Christ" is understandable, though, in truth, it is only different in direction from what Louis Farrakhan regularly preaches. What doesn't seem to ever be understood by the polemicists and propaganda artists is that until both sides stick to the truth, one-sided polemics will serve only to enhance the degree of projection and illusion, fueling the flames of strife, and keeping us mired in the problems, whatever they may be.

And, that, Karen, is what your opinion does.

Nothing I have said is ad hominem. I take issue with your opinion, an opinion of decided half-truth, where the flaws of the politics and ideology are discussed, which only happen to be the same flaws of your side. That tendency to project one's own flaws onto the opposition is at the heart of fear-mongering.

In other words, to make it plain, some would say that the opinion you expressed was an example of fear-mongering, demonizing the opposition to Obama as nothing but.

Obama uses fear-mongering. That is the point. How can an opinion be written that only talks about the flaws of one side?

There is nothing ad hominem about this. I simply point out that you have this habit of doing that, that runs through your editorials here.

In other words, the left's "unreasoning, nameless fear, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance" exists as well.

Roosevelt was a fear monger himself who packed the Supreme Court with two extra justices to get his unconstitutional programs through, who locked up Japanese-Americans, Italian-Americans, and German-Americans, and  who violated the tradition of stepping down after two terms because of some fear that only FDR could handle the job.

Karen , this is not a court of law.  This is a court of public opinion. People are interested in the topic, but most people are interested in how both sides use it.  Without admitting that your own side uses fear   mongering  you can't possibly appreciate what F.M.   is objectively.

All politicians    have   a shadow as a  demagogue        The primary interest of a politician   is to advance himself.  He does this by devaluing his opponent.   Most politicians    are interested in destroying the name of another good person.  People do not want to listen Karen . 

Politics  is a war of personal identity..this is why when Roy criticizes your idea,  you take it personally; because you are personally involved  in the promulgation of this opinion.  What's really going on is you are doing what politician's do!  That's probably why no one else has posted and wants to involve themselves in this.

I get the feeling that your accusations against Roy come from the notion that he hasn't acknowledged what you said but he has!

I have read your commentary and I think you should re-write it. Comments have enlightening information and sometimes more truthful concepts, that is why they are here.  Karen you are right to say there is fear mongering.  Remember Karen  when Obama told us that we had to pass the stimulus pkg, we had to pass it right way, we had to pass it without reading all of it within 48 hrs. of it being re-written and if we didn't pass it within hours the  economic sky would fall?  That was Obama fear mongering  Now having spent less than   5% of the money the economy has already started to  recover, giving lie to his claim .  The point is Obama   is just as guilty at Fear Mongering as the people who do it to him.  That was Roy's point and it is mine.

"

Let me try another tact on this subject.  I play cards often with a gentleman who is a postal carrier and a terrific card player.  He uses the phrase, "I am going to take flyer" when he makes a bid that he is uncertain he can make.  So I am going to take a "flyer" on this topic.

I like reasoned arguments.  I don't like to see things become emotional personal attacks.  I like to cite references and sources but this darn system won't let me do it on replies, so I am sorry in advance for not posting cites.

In the interest of full disclosure, I was a democrat earlier in my life and a Republican beginning about 1994.  I consider myself an independent now though I did attend my last republican caucus.  Trust me, they do not count me as one of their lock step loyalists.  I am as critical of them as I am of the democrats.

I do not think the ideoligcal war is Republican v Democrat, nor Conservative vs Liberal not Rich vs poor and middle class....  I think the real war is average voter vs corrupt politician.

It is my assertion that the 2 major political parties use issues to divide WE THE PEOPLE and divert our attention from their trespasses.

The Founding Father's despised political parties.  On of the worst insults they could give another was to refer to them as a "party man"  They so dispised political parties because they forced the individual to place the priority of  "party" over the priority of "country" I think placing party over country is now the rule.  When you join either of the two political parties, you are required to take an oath of absolute loyalty to that party.  I think that both parties offer positions and candidates that prevent members from acting with absolute loyalty without compromising their principals.

Let me go on futher to assert that regardless of which of the 2 major political parties are in power in the congress and the presidency, the majorty of the American Citizenry is still not represented.

Let now say that American Government has evolved from being a repesentative republic to "Government by the Highest Bidder".

When the Political Leaders are forced to defend positions because they have accepted either a bribe or political contribution, they can not defend, argue and make logical arguements from the heart.  And because they are taking consideration(bribes/campaign contributions) to cast votes on issues that the the majority of voters likely won't agree with, when it comes election time, they cannot run on their voting records. Instead they must resort on attacks on their opponents rather than standing on their records. Let me rephrase that, Politicians try to make themselves appear a better choice than their opponent by demonizing and discrediting their opponent rather than stating the qualities that make them better than their opponent. This strategy avoids having to discuss Politicians have made in exchange for bribes and campaign contributions, but counter to desires of the voting majority. This has led to the oft quoted phrase, "I voted for the lesser of two evils.

The point of the previous paragraph is that both Republicans and Democrats resort to strategies not based on arguing their voting records, because they often take bribes and campaign contributions that induce them to vote against the will of the voting majority.  That leaves demonizing, discrediting and fear mongering as the only alternatives.

Along those lines I would offer the concept of Absolute vs Conditional/Situational morality. If affairs are wrong, they are equally wrong whether the actor is of our own political party or not.  The same amount of evidence required for each of us to consider someone guilty of a crime or breach of the public trust should not be dependent on whether that person is a member of our own political party or not.  Further, we should hold the candidates for our own political party to a moral standard higher than the minimum standard of "the law"

All that having been said, I think I have thoroughly established that my criticisms of President Obama are not based in blind poltical loyalty, nor political diatribe or dogma.  My criticism of President Obama are based in fact.

Both Presidential Candidates promised to clean up the corruption and stand up to the special interests in Washington.

President Obama specifically said, 1) No Lobbyist in the White House; 2)  No Earmarks in the Budget.  But we have lobbyist in the White House and Earmarks in the Budget. Those would be broken campaign promises.  That would be one source of my continued criticism of President Obama.

Next, we have a tax cheat heading the treasury.  And Obama nominated several other persons who cheated on their taxes for cabinet level positions.  Now all these persons are vetted before they are publicly nominated. He had to know about their tax cheating ways before he nominated them, but he still nominated them.  Only public pressure prevented them from being installed.

Next we have Obamas failure to get an exact accounting of where the 700B Bank bailout money went.  I would speculate that it is because a lot of congressmen that voted for it got kickbacks for voting for it and the politicians do not the public to know that is what happened.  Can you say, "conflict of interest" and "not in the best interest of the voting majority"?

Next their is the issue of Democrat California Representative Harman caught on wiretap tape offering to help persons being prosecuted for spying on the USA to get reduced charges in exchange for the chairmanship of the House intelligence Committer.  And then their is Republican AG Gonzalez shutting down the Justice Department investigation into that Justice Department investigation because he wanted her help defending Republican President George Bush in upcoming warrantless wiretap hearings.  I criticize President Obama for not spearheading the impeachment of both Harman and Gonzalez.  Do you want to tell me that is "nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror"?  The security of the country traded for political party gain? Who is watching out for the interests of the country?

And finally their is the spending of an estimated 10 trillion dollars that we do not have.  I sense from the author's political vent that it is pointless for me to define the relationship between printing fiat money that we don't have and hyperinflation.  I will only refer her to video on the Collapse of Argentina in 2001 posted on youtube.com for an explanation. (or try Zeitgeistmovie.com)  I am concerned that we are runing our country. Russia and China are suggesting no longer using the US Dollar as the standard in international exchanges as a result of our wreckless spending and printing of fiat money to pay for the wreckless spending.  I often say to other citizens, "I don't know how anyone over 30 can look anyone under 25 in the eye." Does that sound like, "nameless, unfounded, unjustified terror"?

In the tradition of our Founding Fathers, I hereby label you a "Party Person" Unfortunately, i think you will wear it as a compliment rather than a criticism. 

Now, whereas Queens heart asked you to retract and restate your opinion, I would simply ask you to address my reply and indicate if anything I have said has caused you to rethink any of your original opinion.

I love this country.  My criticisms are based on fact and deed.  They are in no way based on party loyalty. They are based on my love and loyalty for this country that transcend any political party loyalty.  I challenge you to put country ahead of party.

Respectfully submitted,

Don Mashak
The Cynical Patriot

Karen, obviously the kitchen is too hot for you. This is what happens when you editorialize: the readers respond.

What you always miss is that you are always right about something and always wrong to paint a picture of innocence for your own side.

Frankly, I will continue to respond to your opinion-pieces as I see fit.

One more point about "the anti-Christ": I will add that saying "Bush is Hitler" was such a common-place fear-mongering by your side that it began to lose its effect.

That is the secularists' version of  "anti-Christ", using Hitler, since most of them pooh-pooh religion in general.

The Berkeley left-wing stations used to put on programs about all the comparisons that could be made of the history of Hitler coming to power with all its lies and George W Bush.

Did you object then to "fear-mongering"? I doubt it.

Amy, if someone can tell you to "reread", then it is only fair to respond "rewrite".

Obviously, the comment was sarcastic, but being told to "reread" is condescending to say the least and would warrant a bit of turning the other cheek so to speak.

Please read my commentary here carefully, independent of the comments thread.