The degrading effects of terrorism fears

"A citizenry drowning in fear and fixated on Safety to the exclusion of other competing values can only be degraded and depraved."

John Adams, in his 1776 Thoughts on Government, put it this way: "Fear is the foundation of most governments; but it is so sordid and brutal a passion, and renders men in whose breasts it pred...ominates so stupid and miserable, that Americans will not be likely to approve of any political institution which is founded on it."

(updated below - Update II)

I never thought I'd hear myself say this, but David Brooks actually had an excellent column in yesterday's New York Times that makes several insightful and important points. Brooks documents how "childish, contemptuous and hysterical" the national reaction has been to this latest terrorist episode, egged on -- as usual -- by the always-hysterical American media. The citizenry has been trained to expect that our Powerful Daddies and Mommies in government will -- in that most cringe-inducing, child-like formulation -- Keep Us Safe. Whenever the Government fails to do so, the reaction -- just as we saw this week -- is an ugly combination of petulant, adolescent rage and increasingly unhinged cries that More Be Done to ensure that nothing bad in the world ever happens. Demands that genuinely inept government officials be held accountable are necessary and wise, but demands that political leaders ensure that we can live in womb-like Absolute Safety are delusional and destructive. Yet this is what the citizenry screams out every time something threatening happens: please, take more of our privacy away; monitor more of our communications; ban more of us from flying; engage in rituals to create the illusion of Strength; imprison more people without charges; take more and more control and power so you can Keep Us Safe.

This is what inevitably happens to a citizenry that is fed a steady diet of fear and terror for years. It regresses into pure childhood. The 5-year-old laying awake in bed, frightened by monsters in the closet, who then crawls into his parents' bed to feel Protected and Safe, is the same as a citizenry planted in front of the television, petrified by endless imagery of scary Muslim monsters, who then collectively crawl to Government and demand that they take more power and control in order to keep them Protected and Safe. A citizenry drowning in fear and fixated on Safety to the exclusion of other competing values can only be degraded and depraved. John Adams, in his 1776 Thoughts on Government, put it this way:

Fear is the foundation of most governments; but it is so sordid and brutal a passion, and renders men in whose breasts it predominates so stupid and miserable, that Americans will not be likely to approve of any political institution which is founded on it.

As Adams noted, political leaders possess an inherent interest in maximizing fear levels, as that is what maximizes their power. For a variety of reasons, nobody aids this process more than our establishment media, motivated by their own interests in ratcheting up fear and Terrorism melodrama as high as possible. The result is a citizenry far more terrorized by our own institutions than foreign Terrorists could ever dream of achieving on their own. For that reason, a risk that is completely dwarfed by numerous others -- the risk of death from Islamic Terrorism -- dominates our discourse, paralyzes us with fear, leads us to destroy our economic security and eradicate countless lives in more and more foreign wars, and causes us to beg and plead and demand that our political leaders invade more of our privacy, seize more of our freedom, and radically alter the system of government we were supposed to have. The one thing we don't do is ask whether we ourselves are doing anything to fuel this problem and whether we should stop doing it. As Adams said: fear "renders men in whose breasts it predominates so stupid and miserable."

What makes all of this most ironic is that the American Founding was predicated on exactly the opposite mindset. The Constitution is grounded in the premise that there are other values and priorities more important than mere Safety. Even though they knew that doing so would help murderers and other dangerous and vile criminals evade capture, the Framers banned the Government from searching homes without probable cause, prohibited compelled self-incrimination, double jeopardy and convictions based on hearsay, and outlawed cruel and unusual punishment. That's because certain values -- privacy, due process, limiting the potential for abuse of government power -- were more important than mere survival and safety. A central calculation of the Constitution was that we insist upon privacy, liberty and restraints on government power even when doing so means we live with less safety and a heightened risk of danger and death. And, of course, the Revolutionary War against the then-greatest empire on earth was waged by people who risked their lives and their fortunes in pursuit of liberty, precisely because there are other values that outweigh mere survival and safety.

These are the calculations that are now virtually impossible to find in our political discourse. It is fear, and only fear, that predominates. No other competing values are recognized. We have Chris Matthews running around shrieking that he's scared of kung-fu-wielding Terrorists. Michael Chertoff is demanding that we stop listening to "privacy ideologues" -- i.e., that there should be no limits on Government's power to invade and monitor and scrutinize. Republican leaders have spent the decade preaching that only Government-provided Safety, not the Constitution, matters. All in response to this week's single failed terrorist attack, there are -- as always -- hysterical calls that we start more wars, initiate racial profiling, imprison innocent people indefinitely, and torture even more indiscriminately. These are the by-products of the weakness and panic and paralyzing fear that Americans have been fed in the name of Terrorism, continuously for a full decade now.

Ever since I began writing in late 2005 about this fear-addicted dynamic, the point on which Brooks focused yesterday is the one I've thought most important. What matters most about this blinding fear of Terrorism is not the specific policies that are implemented as a result. Policies can always be changed. What matters most is the radical transformation of the national character of the United States. Reducing the citizenry to a frightened puddle of passivity, hysteria and a child-like expectation of Absolute Safety is irrevocable and far more consequential than any specific new laws. Fear is always the enabling force of authoritarianism: the desire to vest unlimited power in political authority in exchange for promises of protection. This is what I wrote about that back in early 2006 in How Would a Patriot Act?:

The president's embrace of radical theories of presidential power threatens to change the system of government we have. But worse still, his administration's relentless, never-ending attempts to keep the nation in a state of fear can also change the kind of nation we are.

This isn't exactly new: many of America's most serious historical transgressions -- the internment of Japanese-Americans, McCarthyite witch hunts, World War I censorship laws, the Alien and Sedition Act -- have been the result of fear-driven, over-reaction to external threats, not under-reaction. Fear is a degrading toxin, and there's no doubt that it has been the primary fuel over the last decade. As the events of the last week demonstrate, it continues to spread rapidly, and it produces exactly the kind of citizenry about which John Adams long ago warned.

UPDATE: Talking to one's friends and co-workers is not a reliable way of gauging public opinion on an issue. Those who want to claim that the media's hysteria over this incident is not matched by the general public's are going to have to explain this:

Fifty-eight percent (58%) of U.S. voters say waterboarding and other aggressive interrogation techniques should be used to gain information from the terrorist who attempted to bomb an airliner on Christmas Day. . . . Seventy-one percent (71%) of all voters think the attempt by the Nigerian Muslim to blow up the airliner as it landed in Detroit should be investigated by military authorities as a terrorist act. Only 22% say it should be handled by civilian authorities as a criminal act, as is currently the case.

Does that sound like a calm and sober citizenry?

UPDATE II: On Fox News yesterday, Lt. Gen. Thomas McInerney (ret.) announces that he wants to strip search all Muslim males between the ages of 18-28, and explains that "political correctness" -- the only possible reason one might have to object to such a proposal -- is going to result in our mass slaughter at the hands of jihadists. It's hard to overstate -- or even fathom -- what happens to people who have sat there for years and ingested this sort of ugliness and panic.

Cheney's stenographers fight back

Note from Greetings: Politico is a Dick Cheney press office, not a news organization. Clearly. Publishing his press releases verbatim with no questions, and no challenges. Politico, the Republican's press corps(e):

by Glenn Greenwald, Salon.com

Throughout the year, Politico has repeatedly published as "news articles" comments from Dick Cheney, which its "reporters" faithfully write down and print with virtually no challenge, skepticism or contradiction. So extreme has this behavior become that even Beltway TV personalities such as Chris Matthews are beginning to mock it. This afternoon, Greg Sargent asked Editor-in-Chief John Harris to defend his magazine's conduct, and Harris replied by claiming, in essence, that Cheney's comments are "newsworthy" and that it's Politico's job to "get newsworthy people to say interesting things."

Harris' reply is a complete non sequitur. Nobody I've heard objects to Politico's act of telling its readers about the "interesting things" Cheney has to say. The objection is that Politico mindlessly reprints any and all claims Cheney wants to make, no matter how factually dubious or even blatantly false, without question or challenge. By definition, then, Politico serves Cheney as his official stenographer and spokesman (i.e., writing down and announcing what someone has said), rather than acting as journalists (i.e., stating what the facts are and how and why a politicians' statements are untrue). Harris doesn't dispute this; he simply explains that -- like most establishment journalists -- Politico's role is not to document someone's falsehoods, but only to repeat and amplify them. We're supposed to believe that what Judy Miller did was somehow anomalous and worthy of being disgraced, yet virtually every time "reporters" like Harris explain how they perceive their role, they describe exactly what Miller did: we get important people to say interesting things and write it down, regardless of whether it's true.

Thus, in their last Cheney "article," Politico let Cheney attack Obama for giving "terrorists the rights of Americans, let[ting] them lawyer up and read[ing] them their Miranda rights" -- without mentioning that the Bush administration did exactly that with Richard Reid, Zacharais Moussoui and several others (see this new Jake Tapper article detailing these contradictions for how an actual "journalist" reports on a political figure's false accusations). Politico also let Cheney accuse Obama of wanting to "release the hard-core Al Qaeda-trained terrorists" from Guantanamo -- without noting that (a) many of the to-be-released detainees are ones even the Bush administration concluded did nothing wrong and are not a threat; (b) the vast majority of detainees held at Guantanamo were completely innocent; (c) it was Bush/Cheney who released many of the detainees who have since returned to the so-called "battlefield," including one of the alleged leaders of Al Qaeda of the Arabian Peninsula; and (d) Obama is using the same tools used by Bush/Cheney -- trials, military commissions and indefinite detention -- to imprison all detainees deemed to be a "threat." Politico also let Cheney repeatedly claim that "that President Obama is trying to pretend we are not at war" -- without noting that Obama twice escalated in Afghanistan, began bombing Yemen, and massively ratcheted up our drone attacks in Pakistan.

In other words, they dutifully wrote down a bunch of falsehoods and lies Cheney told, and passed those claim on to their readers without noting that they were false. When confronted with their conduct, Politico's Editor-in-Chief blithely claims that this misleading, subservient behavior is his understanding of what "journalists" are supposed to. And it undoubtedly is. It's true that, two days before printing its latest Cheney homage, Politico ran a good article by one of its few real reporters, Josh Gerstein, documenting that Bush waited longer to comment on Richard Reid than Obama waited to comment on the Northwest Airlines incident, but that's only one of Cheney's lies, and debunking it in an entirely separate article two days earlier doesn't justify printing Cheney's comments without challenge.

Of course, Politico will continue to serve Cheney in this way -- offering him a challenge-free platform to say whatever he wants -- because if they ever stopped being good little boys for Dick Cheney, he would find someone else to serve as his faithful stenographers, and then they, rather than Politico, would get the Drudge links and gossip attention which Politico, above all else, desperately craves.

* * * * *

I'm not a big fan of "we-are-doomed" symbolism. But for those looking for end-of-the-decade signs of our impending collapse, it would be hard to do better than pointing to the appointment of the Executive Editor of Politico -- of Politico -- to the Pulitzer Committee.

Please go out and bring back a real political party. We need two.

The Republican Party, with Scozzava's withdrawal from the race in New York State, is now who we thought they were. Religious extremists, racially motivated, no different than religious extremist movements in other countries of the world. As I hope they reject those extremists, so do I hope we reject these.

I look forward to either the return of a truly fiscally conservative-based Republican Party, or the replacement of this Edsel version with another party who follows those beliefs. This country needs two truly representative parties. Not one party and an extremist mob threatening, in turn 1) secession; 2) potential military coups; and other like seditionist policies. It does this country no good.

What they will find is what they have been railing against. The demographics of this country are changing. There is no stopping that, and it serves no purpose to be afraid of it. Once the Republican Party can embrace the demographic changes in the U.S. Population and return to what they believed in once, rather than a policy based on villainizing everyone that is simply "not like them", then they will have a chance. Until then, they will be standing on an ever-shrinking iceberg in an ocean that laps closer and closer to its edge.

I await the comments to come that, as I said of this group, move to villainize my comments rather than delineate their proposed policies.

GOP candidate Scozzafava drops out of NY-23 race

Note from Greetings: So.. the Republicans are now the party of the EXTREME extreme right-wing, with no relationship to the mainstream of America. This woman is a conservative, and SHE'S not extreme enough for them.

I hope the Republicans can shift back to their true fiscally conservative base and away from this equivalent of religious extremism that has taken over other parts of the world, too. This nation needs a realistic and valid 2-party system, not one party and an extremist mob.

The Republican Party's nominee in a special election bows out in favor of a third-party candidate

Alex Koppelman

Oct. 31, 2009

Score one for the tea partiers. Conservative activists unhappy that Dede Scozzafava, a moderate, was the Republican Party's choice to run in a special election to fill a congressional seat in upstate New York won a major victory on Saturday. Scozzafava has announced that she's dropping out of the race, leaving third-party conservative candidate Doug Hoffman as the Republican choice.

"In recent days, polls have indicated that my chances of winning this election are not as strong as we would like them to be. The reality that I've come to accept is that in today's political arena, you must be able to back up your message with money—and as I've been outspent on both sides, I've been unable to effectively address many of the charges that have been made about my record. But as I've said from the start of this campaign, this election is not about me, it's about the people of this district. And, as always, today I will do what I believe serves their interests best," Scozzafava said in a statement.

"It is increasingly clear that pressure is mounting on many of my supporters to shift their support. Consequently, I hereby release those individuals who have endorsed and supported my campaign to transfer their support as they see fit to do so. I am and have always been a proud Republican. It is my hope that with my actions today, my party will emerge stronger nd our district and our nation can take an important step towards restoring the enduring strength and economic prosperity that has defined us for generations."

The Republican establishment -- or at least those parts of it that hadn't already been backing Hoffman -- has now officially thrown its support behind the third-party choice. It's hard to predict anything in a special election like this one, but given the makeup of the district, it appears Hoffman is now headed for victory.

-- Alex Koppelman