The Great Republican Fear Machine Backfires
Fear has been the Republican Party’s greatest weapon, and notably so during the Age of Bush: Fear of people with funny names and skin colors. Fear of people who do not worship a Christian God. Fear of people who are not red-blooded Americans. Fear of people who don’t spout patriotic slogans or wear American flag lapel pins. But now the screw has turned and fear has become the party’s greatest enemy.
This fear is palpable practically anywhere you go these days, whether it be a hospital waiting room, PTA meeting, shopping mall or town square.
Americans are fearful of losing their jobs if they still have them or finding work if they don’t. They are fearful of being able to make mortgage and car payments. They are fearful of being able to send their children to college. And they are fearful of being able to pay for medical care for their aging parents, let alone themselves and their kids.
It is hardly worth mentioning that these fears are substantially the result of the Bush administration’s failed economic, social and educational policies, as well as tax cuts that benefited the rich at a time when the U.S. was fighting not one but two wars.
But I’ll mention that anyhow because it should be remembered that a supplicant Democratic congressional minority pretty much went along with The Decider only to kind of find its voice in the closing days of his administration, which happened to be about the time that an audacious whippersnapper from Illinois came out of nowhere to forge these fears into an electoral mandate that begs comparison to FDR in 1932 at the depths of the Great Depression.
As perverse as it may seem, if fear is now the Republicans’ greatest enemy it is Barack Obama’s greatest friend.
This is because without the fear that is abroad in the land the chances of him engineering a policy revolution not seen since FDR would be slim to none, and without that fear the “government is bad” meme flogged by Bobby Jindal in his Republican response to Obama’s address to Congress — a tactic that is at the heart of the party’s intellectual bankruptcy — would not have been so discordant to Americans who need their government more than ever.
As it is, reforming health care, easing a disproportionate tax burden on the middle class, bringing energy policy into the 21st century and other initiatives that will cost trillions of dollars while sending the federal deficit into uncharted realms will be difficult enough with the traditional enemies of reform sharpening their knives and the Republicans playing their obstructionist part more for political mendacity than philosophical reasons.
It was FDR who famously said “The only thing we have to fear is fear itself.” That seems a bit simplistic even in this sound-bite day and age, but it is a reminder that exploiting people’s fears for political gain rather than trying to ease their fears for the greater good is perhaps the biggest reason that the Republicans’ time in the wilderness will be long.
Shaun Mullen is a former The Moderate Voice columnist. Over a long career with newspapers, this award-winning editor and reporter covered the Vietnam War, O.J. Simpson trials, Clinton impeachment circus and coming of Osama bin Laden, among many other big stories. He blogs at Kiko’s House where there is a related post today on the conservative love affair with Edmund Burke.
30 Responses to “The Great Republican Fear Machine Backfires”
This post is thought-provoking. Republicans, Democrats, and those of minor parties (or no party, like myself) agree on the objective. Who doesn't want people to have work, to be able to pay their bills and rent, etc.? A few random observations:
1) It is not our right to have a house, but we do need a roof over our heads. I hear very little talk about affordable rent, and the assumption is that if you can afford it, you'll get a house. In this age of expansive eminent domain, owning a home is no longer necessarily desirable, but who dares question that American orthodoxy?
2. When the government grows, charity shrivels. In our community, long-term shelters that once could count on community dollars to keep going are hurting. Charitable giving is down. Why is that? The recession if part of it, but as government expands, it kills off private charitable initiative. Why should churches (or non-religious NGO's) do much when Washington is charging into the fray? Once again we defer to the faceless State, and we lose a part of our souls.
3. Once expanded, government does not shrink. This is the most insidious part, whether under former President Bush, and now under President Obama. Name one program that has been dismantled. Once funded, each group gets its own lobbyists, and it is perpetuated ad infinitum.
In short, Washington is not doing “nothing” when it doesn't fund yet another program that it would have to borrow money to fund. It is doing something, namely, allowing private citizen initiatives to flower as a response. These initiatives are always closer to the need, and not some faceless and inept bureaucracy, cf. hurricane Katrina. The best model is Greensburg, Kansas, where citizens helped themselves rebuild following the tornadoes and didn't wait on state or federal bureaucrats to ride to the rescue.
Well all I can say after looking at that Budget.
I stand confirmed. Those of us who pointed out did so and were right.
Barak Obama is a far, far left progressive who is going to govern to his base and despite his lies about being moderate he went right to work dishing out everything the left to far left could ever dream of.
Quite simply Barak Obama is the great deceiver. Gee now why is that a surprise coming from a say anything politician to get elected???
Excellent commentary Shaun.
…exploiting people’s fears for political gain rather than trying to ease their fears for the greater good is perhaps the biggest reason that the Republicans’ time in the wilderness will be long.
Exactly, and while the American people are often disturbingly slow to figure these things out, they seem to eventually.
Manchester,
1) Rents have actually come down quite a bit – or at least are about to come down (they've already dropped in England). The reason? A glut of unoccupied houses, and a lot of folks with negative equity looking to rent their homes to make the mortgage payments.
2) Since the large government response to the economic crisis hasn't really hit Main Street yet, it's hard to blame government for crowding out charity giving RIGHT NOW. The obvious reason for charity shriveling up is that people have less money to give. Oh, and very small towns like Greensburg, Kansas, where everybody knows everybody else, will always respond differently than a large city. That was true in the 19th century too.
3) This is true, and is the most powerful argument conservatives have. “Temporary” solutions rarely remain temporary – although most of the New Deal and Great Society programs were, in fact, canceled within just a couple years.
The fear machine has been used by both parties. The rhetoric used to cramdown the Stimulas package was full of it. Hopefully it wil backfire for them as well when people start wanted to return to fiscal responsibility.
Leonidas, you appear to be wishing for the US to fail in it's attempt to reverse the terrible course it's been on these past several years. What does that say for your credibility?
Leonidas is right, and the real lesson that the GOP should take from this is that 'what goes around comes around'. They may have gotten temporary political gain from fearmongering, but then the opposition party uses the same technique with even greater prowess.
When political debate has consistently been stifled by claiming that the opposition is obstructing the policy that is urgently needed to avert a crisis, the public becomes conditioned to accept that as sufficient support of the policy. That sets up a situation where the opposing party can easily use the same technique to aggressively institute their own ideological shift without having the voters even question what they're signing on to.
Thanks, JSpencer, for providing that convenient example of how the game is played!
Shaun, last time I checked the Democrats were in charge of the entire government. I'd love to read ONE frickin' column from you that isn't an anti-GOP screed. How about giving us something relevant instead of beating a dead horse?
Mr. Face:
Your ad hominem attack sums up the GOP's quandary, albeit unintentionally: The same old crap hasn't worked, but because there are no new ideas, just default to the same old crap.
While they may not be entirely without a valid point, I find it rich that the conservatives have the audacity to portray themselves as a clarion call for fiscal responsibility.
I understand that not all of Obama's spending package will work and I also understand that those who have made up their mind will not change it, especially die-hard conservatives. But what Obama does do, that GW and his cohorts did not, is offer 'hope' and adds to that 'Trust' ( trust = information and honesty), at least among the more flexible thinkers in global society. But to call Obama deceitful goes beyond reason or intelligence. Yeah things change and he cannot do all he said he could (who has ever been able to do that – GW most of all). I am just so relieved I do not have to 'gag' and turn away or switch channels in the face of true 'evil', whenever the American president speaks. People will continue to give to those in need if they can because that is an inherent part of human nature in most societies. Finally I also realise that some people are programmed by fear and paranoia, especially in the US, and likely those that are so programmed have a gun in their house somewhere. The pendulum seems to be swinging (hopefully) in the other direction. For those that don't want 'hope' and must believe in fear and despair, just lay back and think of a world back in balance whatever you perceive that to be. If you can't get rid of fear in your life, then cancerous tumours lie in your future.
Well, thanks, at least, for noticing & replying, as nonresponsive as it was. You seem to have assumed I'm a republican. Sorry to disappoint you. I wasn't “attacking” you, I was registering a complaint. I suspect you may actually be a good writer, if a bit of a one note pipe. I was merely suggesting (and even hoping) that you might have something better to write about than to kick your usual dead horse. Apparently I'm wrong.
If you can't get rid of fear in your life, then cancerous tumours lie in your future.
If a rightwinger had said something similar about leftwingers, it would be considered as some kind of threat or wishing ill on them. Which is absurd, because those of us who can think logically can see that you honestly just believe this, Chancellor, and are trying to warn people.
But can you see how silly it all is to assume you know what motivates other people's thinking? You've got this whole narrative of this stereotypical conservative holed up in his room with guns because he's pooping in his drawers instead of embracing the hope!
Do you ever get out and talk to any actual conservatives?
Interesting debate, as always. Obama is not whipping up false fear (fear of gays, fear of Mexicans). Americans are actually looking at the wolf at their door right now, not being told to imagine “mushroom clouds” over America.
And I'm always amused when those who DID use fear to divide and distract, while pocketing the goodies, talk about “governing to the base” or “pandering”. Nice emotionally charged talking points GS, but “pandering” to the majority is called “democracy.” Look it up.
As for charity? People are giving less because they have less, not because government is giving more. But we the people SHOULD share in providing for our citizenry. What makes handouts from the church preferable to a government managed safety net? The false elevation of “charity” over public responsibility was exemplified by charities providing armor for our troops, clearly a public (government) responsibility. Veterans in soup lines? We should be ashamed of that, not holding it up as an example of how things should be.
Mr. Face:
Some recent non-Republican Party bashing posts . . .
On decriminalizing marijuana:
http://kikoshouse.blogspot.com/2009/02/legalizi…
On Abraham Lincoln's abuses of civil liberties:
http://kikoshouse.blogspot.com/2009/02/habeas-c…
On the death of the great American newspaper:
http://kikoshouse.blogspot.com/2009/02/goodbye-…
On why John Yoo attracts and repels:
http://kikoshouse.blogspot.com/2009/02/why-john…
On the timelessness of Bob Marley's “Exodus”:
http://kikoshouse.blogspot.com/2009/01/apprecia…
On the psychopathology of Bernard Madoff:
http://kikoshouse.blogspot.com/2009/01/bernie-m…
On the beyond tiresome “Should Israel Exist?” argument:
http://kikoshouse.blogspot.com/2009/01/tiresome…
On dreaming:
http://kikoshouse.blogspot.com/2009/01/dream.html
The definition of fearmongering doesn't include the necessity of the fears being unwarranted, Greendreams. Fearmongering is a tool of deflection and the term applies whether or not there's a valid threat or reason for fear.
What makes handouts from the church preferable to a government managed safety net?
The safety net is fine, but the current programs already go beyond a basic safety net. But there's plenty of reasons that churches or nonprofits are preferable for administering charitable services- the top two being the dehumanization that comes from being a ward of the government and the massive potential for fraud and political vote buying that comes from government administered services.
CS, go live on the street for a week and test that safety net. Assuring that no American starves or freezes to death is NOT a charitable service. It's our responsibility. Our parents paid faithfully into a retirement program all their working lives. It's not charity to honor our commitments.
And working on behalf of the public is EXACTLY the kind of “vote buying” that democracy demands. “fearmongering” “dehumanizing” “ward of the government.” Nice try at demonizing legitimate government services. It is far more “dehumanizing” standing in line at the mission for a bowl of soup than getting food stamps at the county building.
I've never seen anyone treated with anything less than complete dignity at the soup kitchens where I've worked. I'd also hold up examples like our local foodbank program (massively supported by local churches as well as lots of secular volunteers) that among other things, brings lunches to families of kids who get free school lunch during the school year, when they're on break from school. And programs like Meals on Wheels that go to homes of Senior Citizens. And programs like Habitat for Humanity that protect people's dignity by having them put in sweat equity to help build their own home.
But you do bring up a good point; the basic safety net programs don't function very well and I'd be all for cutting wasteful programs elsewhere to fund better homeless shelters and networks to direct people to rehab and job training programs.
I didn't mean to imply that anything less than compassion characterizes some of these charities. But our approach has been to shift income upward to the least needy and treat those in need like freeloaders. Our national policy not only lacks compassion, it lacks vision. As you note, rehab and job training are needed government programs. They aren't handouts. They're investments in our human resources. The most wasteful programs in my view are those that cheat the masses in favor of the rich and powerful, who have proven not to be the keys to our success, but the worst examples of greed and shortsightedness. And they did not prove to be all that smart either.
“Wealth redistribution” is held up as a great evil when, like with progressive taxation, it means increasing opportunity for lower income people. Wholesale wealth redistribution upward is never criticized by conservatives. It has been our policy since Reagan cut the 70% top tax rate and put industry in charge of crafting legislation and “self regulating”.
“Thanks, JSpencer, for providing that convenient example of how the game is played!” ~ CStanley
If you think this is still about tit for tat nonsense your ideological bias is getting in the way of your understanding. Unity is needed now more than ever, not more obstructionism, especially when it's coupled with a vacuum of useful ideas. Apparently some portions of the GOP want to continue being the party of division, even in a critical time when America needs to pull together. Is this lost on you?
Too bad we can't all be reasonable and do it your way, then JSpencer.
GD: Both parties have been guilty of writing bad policy on regulation and turning a blind eye to enforcing the regulations that were on the books. Industry will now be writing legislation as well, but it'll be different industries, as well as special interest groups. You kid yourself if you don't think that unholy alliances exist just as much on the left as they do on the right (not to mention the opportunistic ones who switch sides according to which way the wind is blowing.)
BTW, this is what is seriously concerning to me- I don't expect you guys to agree with me about the direction that the policies are taking, because you believe in those policies. That in and of itself wouldn't bother me if there were any sign that you were seriously going to hold your side accountable. The Democrats control both chambers and the White House now, and with that comes great responsibility. The GOP wasn't responsible when they held that kind of power, and rather than use that as an excuse for not exercising oversight on your party, the narrative continues that the Democrats are white knights who are going to rescue us and everyone needs to support them without question.
CS, I think most of us hold the belief that with great power comes great responsibility. And I agree with you that “unholy alliances” exist on the left as well as the right. That said, I reject any PC notion that the parties need to be referred to as equally bad in terms of their performance and records. Matters of degree exist and are important. We also differ in our understanding of the need for radical solutions and the extent to which courageous and unpopular steps might necessary. I have great concerns about the problems we are experiencing and also the solutions. What I don't have is a kneejerk response to any good ideas that might help us out of the swamp just because they may involve a certain amount of sacrifice. This country has a history of making great sacrifices when necessary for the good of it's peoples' future. Doing nothing or not enough would have been easy short term responses to the great depression, WWII, etc. but would have left us a weaker nation in the long run.
CS, as I said, it is up to US. All of us. We need to be vigilant on oversight and accountability and I for one will expect Dems to bring about exactly what the GOP took away; accountability and transparency. Will you be honest in your assessment? I doubt it frankly, but I expect the Dems will not obstruct justice by refusing Congressional subpoenas, will not condone torture and kidnapping, will not assert the president is above the law, will insist on oversight and will measure, rather than hide, the effectiveness or ineffectiveness of government programs.
It seems disingenuous to assert the Dems and GOP equally “turn a blind eye” on enforcement, when deregulation has been the GOP mantra, and criticizing regulation as “bad for business” has been the GOP talking point for 30 years. Admit it, the Dems are considered OVER-regulators by the GOP, and the GOP has failed in its obligation to see that rules are followed in every sector.
As for “support them without question” that was BUSH's line. The questions and criticisms from the right are on the news every day, and no one is preaching blind obedience like the GOP did for the last 8 years. In fact, Republicans take their best shots, as they have for the last 2 months and Obama blows them away in a single speech, without badmouthing them, as your side has consistently done, accusing us of being unpatriotic and godless if we criticize the smallest detail of the GOP mantra.
WIll I be honest? How about will you be honest, Greendreams? JSpencer at least admits he knows what I'm talking about in terms of 'unholy alliances'.
Did Barney Frank agree with the need to regulate Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac? Did Maxine Waters say that there was “nothing broken at Fannie Mae, and certainly not at Freddie Mac”?
Surely you guys have seen this clip, no? I realize it's one sided, but please do not even try to dismiss it on that basis, because there is clearly enough evidence there to show culpability ON THIS PARTICULAR ISSUE of the Democrats resisting attempts to regulate the GSE's.
I have no qualms with criticism of many in the GOP for failing to regulate private institutions, but the Democrats clearly have a history of failing to regulate the government ones or the ones that they choose to partner with, along with other special interest groups.
It has nothing to do with calling it all equal on both sides, GD- it's a matter of recognizing that there's equal opportunity for that kind of corrupting influence on both sides even if it's done with different partners. The public gets screwed either way, and with the size of increase we're now seeing in the federal budget, there will be an unprecedented opportunity for those kinds of problems to occur.
And by the way, those of us who oppose the plan ARE already being told we're unpatriotic, and even though Obama doesn't use that kind of rhetoric he still has told people that they either should go along with this or be seen as obstructionist (there's no room for actual debate there.)
OK, I've pointed this out before. Bush was 100% behind these programs. Watch him fully backing them as HIS programs.
[re: Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac]
“I proposed and urged Congress to fully fund the American Dream Down Payment Act. This will use money, taxpayer money, to help low income families. One of the programs is designed to help deserving families with bad credit histories to qualify for home ownership loans. You don't have to have a lousy home for first time home buyers. The low income home buyer can have just as nice a house as anybody else.” GW Bush, 2002
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kNqQx7sjoS8&NR=1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MqR15H0gNBU&feat…
Yes, his backing of those concepts was part of the toxic mess- but he did call for reform and regulation when the problems began to surface.
http://www.bucksright.com/bush-proposed-fannie-…
A lot of the Democrats' comments on that previous youtube I linked to were in response to the calls for greater oversight of Fannie and Freddie. The Democrats presented it as though these were political battles and the calls for regulation were 'solutions in search of a problem.'
By the way, regarding your comments about Bush's call for increasing homeownership- why do you think many of us keep saying that he wasn't a real conservative?
I mean, many of us felt good about the ideas behind those policies because believe it or not, compassionate conservatism isn't an oxymoron. But on the other hand, conservatism really is a reality based ideology, or more correctly it's a non-ideology. Conservatives accept that there are limits to what we can accomplish and reject a lot of social policy because we believe that it ultimately backfires. See the proof in the pudding on this very issue, and see why this was an example of Bush's failures being a result of going against conservative principle, not being too conservative.