OT: Brzezinski on culture of fear

[MBS]

Oped in today's Washington Post
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/23/AR2007032301613.html

The "war on terror" has created a culture of fear in America. The Bush administration's elevation of these three words into a national mantra since the horrific events of 9/11 has had a pernicious impact on American democracy, on America's psyche and on U.S. standing in the world. Using this phrase has actually undermined our ability to effectively confront the real challenges we face from fanatics who may use terrorism against us.. .
Constant reference to a "war on terror" did accomplish one major objective: It stimulated the emergence of a culture of fear. Fear obscures reason, intensifies emotions and makes it easier for demagogic politicians to mobilize the public on behalf of the policies they want to pursue. . . Where is the U.S. leader ready to say, "Enough of this hysteria, stop this paranoia"?

I also posted this excerpt, without comment, in GD-politics. But I"ll add a comment here: this is exactly the atmosphere we battled in the 2004 election, and anyone who minimizes its effects on the outcome of the 2004 race was simply not paying attention.

I agree completely with Brzezinski that a) "Fear obscures reason, intensifies emotions and makes it easier for demagogic politicians to mobilize the public on behalf of the policies they want to pursue" amd b) .we fell for this stuff hook, line and sinker, and doing so has made our country less secure (both senses: strategically and psychologically).

[ProSense]

1. Agree, the constant

terror alerts had a far greater impact on the election than the Swift Liars. The 2004 election was a coordinated Republican Party assault on democracy.

[karynnj]

2. Where was Brzezinski when

a certain leader spoke of a future time when terrorism would be a nuisance in a NYT magazine article. Kerry was the first to promise that more hopeful future and I don't remember a whole lot of Democrats defending his ideas on the WOT - until after the thwarted plane bombings in England.

Oddly if you think of what terrorism means - Bush himself terrorized this country as successfully as anyone.

[TayTay]

3. I agree Karynnj

The odds in 2004 were stacked against the Democrats. People forget so much. The Russian standoff with terrorists at the school in Beslan has about as much impact as the SBVT. That is true. That kept the vaunted 'soccer moms' in a state of fear. http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/europe/09/01/russia.school/ (Kids terrorized in a school is a very understandable phenomenon.) That kept some of the vote count from women down. We never really got the women's vote in the traditional way Dems do.

IT was a culture of fear. It still is. This is very, very bad for democracy, but since when does Karl Rove care about little things like democracy?

[wisteria]

4. Fear was very prevalent in 2004 and when we got complacent and

a bit comfortable they would make sure they did something to place the public back in a state of fear.
My personal opinion on Rove is that Hell is too good for him.

[MBS]

5. The word traitor seems to me not too strong a word for these people n/t

[wisteria]

7. Yes, that seems to fit well. The damage they have done to this country will take years to undo.

And, the tricks, lies and manipulation they got away with in 2004 have set a dangerous new level of what is acceptable behavior and what is not in a political race. Much of what the Repubs did in 2004, went far beyond the norm. Anything they had to do to reelect Bush was considered fair, when in fact, they went beyond disgraceful.

[wisteria]

6. I agree 100% that a frightened public played right into the Republican hands.

Rove and other slim plained it that way. They did all they could to frighten the public into sticking with Bush- right up to three days before the election with the release of the Bin Laden tape. It got to a point that something big was expected to happen especially since Bush was not polling as well as Kerry at that point.