The Politics of Fear - Essay Example

Running head: politics of fear The politics of fear (25, 11, 2008) Introduction The issue of politics of fear seems to go beyond even the elemental differences in outlook. At the same time, it is worth noting here that were it not for the fact that the politics of fear flourished so powerfully with the cultural climate of the day, perhaps we would not have witnessed the amount of political flourishing that we seem to now (Altheide, 2006). As it were, politicians could not possibly just create fear out of the blues, and neither do the same politicians dominate the use of fear; we might as well have security and health panics emanating from the internet, or better still, from advocacy groups (Furedi, 2007). Ironically, most democratic governments spend just as much time attempting to handle the impact of stories that have come into the light in a spontaneous manner as they would while carrying out campaigns. The politics of fear have grown in breath and depth as a result of the depiction of personhood as being a very vulnerable entity. We seem to be living in an era of a lack of alternatives and for this reason, we seem not to be in need of someone who will keep on reminding us that we are getting more powerless by the day (Furedi, 2007). As a result of this scenario, a majority of the people have come to interpret and regard events from the perspective of anxiety and fear. Fear politicization Fear politics are a measure of an in-depth cultural mood. Nevertheless, such a situation never came into being on its own. It is worth noting here that fear has time and again been politicized deliberately. All through history, the ruling class has taken upon itself the mandate of using fear as a political tool. Generation after generation of totalitarian governments have adopted the directive that Machiavelli made to rulers; that by being feared, they would be recipients of an even greater form of security, more than they would ever receive from love (Furedi , 2007). Fear could be used to terrorize, coerce, and in the maintenance of public order. Unity and consensus could also be gained by way of infuriating a general response to a supposed threat. Currently, the main aim of politics of fear seems to be not only a gaining of consensus, but also to forge, as an index of oneness around elite that would otherwise appear to be disconnected. Thomas Hobbes, an English philosopher, provides us through his writings with the original systematic endeavor to expand fear politics that could as well be utilized in the implementation of the suggestion that we do not have an alternative in politics. Hobbes opines that through cultivating fear, the main aim is to render any would-be radical argue towards a collective experimentation ineffectual (Rosen, 2002). In order to realize such an objective, Hobbes is of the opinion that it would be in the best interests of both the state and its people if the masses were convinced to dare less (Furedi, 2007). The people that internalized a fear consciousness were less likely to assume a risk, let alone a collective experimentation. Additionally, the promotion of a wide aversion consciousness to the unknown aids in the instilling of fear in the masses that whatever they had not experimented, could as well be harmful to them. Presently, there has been an institutionalization of the fear of the unknown harm, and this seems to strengthen the currently prevailing fear culture (Dickinson, 2006). A lot of the public figures in political offices have to daily grapple with the question of whether they need to reduce fear, or politicize it. The same question also confronted a Former New Labor campaign adviser, Phillip Gould. Through his 1994 publication, 'fighting of the fear factor', Gould argued that there does exists a feeling of anxiety and insecurity that tends to revolve around the present day electorates. It is this sense of mood anxiety over the future that Gould has observed to be the reason behind the use of fear tactics by politicians. As a result, such tactics reined supremacy in the political landscape for the period between the 1980s, all through to the early 1990s. In a bid to defend themselves against fear-rooted attacks, popular parties are often forced to instantly respond upon being challenged (Furedi, 2007). 2004 US presidential elections In the period before and after the 2004 presidential election in the United States, a posture similar to that hypothesized by Gould seems to have been adopted by a majority of the democrats. During this period, a lot of commentators were of the opinions that fear politics had indeed dominated the presidential election in the United States. The Republican presidential candidate, President Bush, as well as his Democratic candidate, John Kerry did not escape the criticism either. According to Furedi (2007), President Bush was the most attacked of the two candidates. The claim by a majority of the people was that Bush had specifically chosen fear to be his preferred weapon of choice. Further, the media also accused him of trying to systematically stage-manage the masses based on the terrorism fear that was still freshly etched in their minds, thanks to the 9/11 events. This move, critics have observed, was geared towards helping bush to stamp out his authority in administration. The Patriotic Act, a consequent of the after 9/11 event, has especially been widely regarded as a pointer to the use of fear dominance (Altheide, 2006). Media pundits who grace the political scene during the twenty first century have also made a crucial discovery; that governments are able to uphold their influence through instilling fear onto the people. The Bush administration has especially appeared on record, and more specifically, during the 2004 presidential campaign in the United States, as having greatly enhanced the elevation of terrorism, as being the major threat to civilization (Furedi, 2007). However, this does little to dispel the fact that terrorism fear is not a new thing. As early as the 1990s, there was still the fear of a possible holding of mass destruction weapons by Saddam Hussein (Reynolds, 2008). It is not possible for politicians to create fear out of the thin air In the 2004 presidential election campaigns in the United States, the Democrats were of the idea that the re-election of Bush would have aiding in his conspiring to have the military draft reintroduced. One of the websites belonging to the Democrats even went to the extent of pointing out that in his tenure, President Bush was not able to give Americans adequate homeland security, and for that reason, Americans were better advised not to repeat a similar mistake, but rather they ought to vote in Kerry, as the security of the United States rested on his capable hands (Dickinson, 2006). Looked at from another angle, Kerry himself could even be seen as being a more complicated practitioner of the fear of politics, more than even Bush himself. A case in point then was a controversy that had entangled the debate on flu vaccine shortages. This prompted Kerry to seize the opportunity, in which he argued that it was not possible to trust Bush with the protection of the public health of the Americans (Furedi, 2007). These comments by Kerry were just the needed recipe to illicit panic, with the result that even those people who had not hitherto come to hear of the panic, were now among the first to line up for receiving a vaccine. According to VandeHei and Kurtz (2004), John Kerry and a majority of his supporters were able to adopt the security fear strategy that had up to this point been Bush's strongpoint. This could not have come at a better time, bearing in mind that the American voters were still trying to come into terms with the war anxiety in Iraq, terrorism threats, and possible nuclear attacks. None less than Kerry and his party official warned the American voters that should they as much as vote in President Bush, then America should brace itself for a war in Iraq akin to the Vietnam American war. In addition, Kerry warned of a possible clandestine calling up of reservists, as well as a nuclear assault at the very heart of the United States. Kerry and his cronies also opined that unless a Democratic presidential candidate was at the helm of the political office in the united states, then the hunt for bin laden would not only remain an elusive task, but that he would time and again continue to haunt Americans and the world (VandeHei & Kurtz, 2004). Through the use of television advertisements, speeches and statements, Kerry and his campaign machinery were warning the Americans to expect higher rates of casualties in Iraq, as well as a threat to homeland security by terrorists, if at all the voters went ahead to reelect president bush into office. On the other hand, President Bush, during the entire campaign period, spent a lot of time and resources attempting to convince voters that Kerry is not one to be trusted in terms of national security (VandeHei & Kurtz, 2004). In addition, Bush, through a news advert, also attempted to portray how Kerry appeared weak on terrorism, through the use of a caption that weakness appears to welcome those capable of harming Americans. In the September of 2004, Kerry scathingly launched an attack on how president Bush handled the war in Iraq, by purporting that the president was out to create a 'fantasy world', by way of that there did exist chaos and indiscriminate killings through out Iraq, as well as a denial of possible war casualties (Kristi et al, 2008). 2008 presidential elections Rob Reynolds, who is based in Washington and happens to be a senior correspondent for Al Jazeera, is one reporter who has been fervently following the 2008 presidential election debate (Reynolds, 2008). As he notes, the use of political fear was very rife in both the Republican and the Democrats camps. The internet was especially the most sought-after tool to stoke the fire between the two camps. Reynolds tells of an encounter in Los Angeles with an elderly lady who claimed to have stumbled on some awful tales concerning Obama on the internet. The old lady was of the opinion that should these things about Obama turn out to be the truth, then the implication is that he may not be as patriotic to his country as he would make us believe. The old lady that Reynolds interviewed told of how rumors were circulating to the effect that Obama is a non-christian. The mainstream media has tried to discredit speculation about Obama not being a Christian, or his lack of respect for the national flag (Reynolds, 2008). Nevertheless, this did little to reduce the circulation of such allegations, and millions of voters have come to believe in them. Indeed the Republican camp lead by John McCain and Sarah Palin, his running mate, has utilized fear greatly in the 2008 US presidential elections to taint Obama. First, his roots in Africa have been used as a way of discrediting his responsibility, by way of showing how his Kenyan relatives were 'languishing in poverty'. That the Republican camp viewed Obama as an outsider, and a dangerous one at that, is not in doubt. Little wonder then, that John McCain, in one of his presidential campaigned, posed the question to the masses, "who really is Obama" (Reynolds, 2008). To a different group of Republicans, Palin asserted that Obama is someone who views America to be imperfect, and this was the reason why he associates with the very terrorists who would later destroy his country of birth. Reynolds (2008) also opines that countless voters have also received telephone calls from their homes, with the message from the callers that Obama has been a close associate of those terrorists who are believed to have been behind the bombing the capital of the United States. The hate campaign even went a notch higher, compared to that of the 2004 (Kristi et al, 2008). This time round, a majority of Americans claimed to have received compact disks that had either been attached to their newspapers on Sunday, or even on their mail. The compact disc whose title was "obsession: radical Islam's war with the west" is claimed to have run for an hour, and those who watched it claim that it had been filled with images of Muslims that were declaring threats on the United States, as well as the interviews of children of Arab descent who were shown issuing contentious remarks. According to Reynolds (2008), the destination of these videos was primarily targeted at the voters located in those states that are deemed to have been the battle grounds of the 2008 US presidential elections. Apparently, this is seen as an attempt at stoking anger and fear among the electorates, with a view to affecting the election results. (Reynolds, 2008). A case of failed tactics Another example of the mongering of fear, this time from the website of a Christian organization that also focuses on family features, was that of a letter that is claimed to be from the future, 2112 to be specific, a time when the Obama will have finalized his four years in presidency. The letter has it that there shall be a discrimination against Christian of the American descent, in the alternate universe. In addition, gay marriages and adoption, as well as the denial of Christians against a right to pray, shall be the order of the day. The letter also supplies that the ownership of guns shall have since been outlawed (Reynolds, 2008). According to the letter, a majority of the Eastern Europe shall have been occupied by both Russia and Iran, based on the security and foreign policies of Obama, and that a nuclear attack on Israel was imminent. However, not even the Obama camp has escaped from getting entangled in the ensuing fear politics of the 2008 presidential campaigns in the United States (Kristi et al, 2008). The then Democratic presidential candidate, Senator Barrack Obama appeared on record as insinuating that by voting in Senator John McCain, this would be another four years of the rule of president bush. Mr. Obama also showed how the McCain camp was more interested in the cutting of tax for the upper middle class and the industry owners, while the middle class and the majority of the employees grappled in poverty. In a tough rejoinder, McCain attested that he was keen or wealth creation, while Obama was concerned with the distribution of this wealth to the less fortunate (Kristi et al, 2008). He further showed how Obama was inexperienced in international policies, as well national security, and took the time to indicate how by voting in an upstart, America was doomed to fail in its quest to remain as a superpower. From yet another angle, Obama indicated how time and again, McCain had voted to have the American troops in Iraq remain there. Conclusion Historically, the ruling class has had to resort to the use of fear as a way of asserting their authority. Apparently, politicians of the past ages, and even the current ones, seems to be protgs of the Machiavellian school of thought, by way of backing his argument that by instilling fear and anxiety on the people, they shall be revered and feared by the masses, and this will in effect lead to the acquiring of a sense of security, more than they would ever receive from love. The issue of whether to reduce or politicize fear has been one that has been bothering politicians over the ages. Nowhere is this more evident that in the past two presidential elections in the United States. During the 2004 presidential campaigns, the Democratic group and their presidential candidate John Kerry tried to taint President Bush for his failure to capture and apprehend Bin Laden, and for fueling the Iraq war. Kerry argued that a win for the democrats would help put an end the rein of the terrorists. Kerry also used the flu epidemic of 2004 to accuse bush of lack of control over the health of the Americans. On his part, Bush, through news ads, portrayed Kerry as weak and vulnerable, and hence capable of inviting terrorism into the United States. The 2008 presidential elections have equally been plagued by the political fear, with the McCain camp linking Obama to terrorism, accusing him of being green to security matter, and international economics. Obama has also capitalized on the failed last term of the bush administration to associate McCain with the Bush camp. Though the politics of fear may have aided in the re-election of President Bush in 2004, by his way of portraying the weaknesses of Kerry, the McCain camp have failed to use the same tactic on the Obama camp. Apparently, a majority of the Americans are more concerned with a failing US economy, as opposed to being caught up in politics of fear. 'References' Altheide, D. L. (2006). Terrorism and the politics of fear. Lanham, MD: Rowman Altamira Retrieved November 25, 2008, from: http://books.google.co.ke/booksid= Dickinson, T. (2006). The fear of politics. Rolling Stone. Retrieved November 25, 2008, from http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/10533313/the_politics_of_fear Furedi, F. (2007). Politics of fear. New York: Continuum International publishing group. Retrieved November 25, 2008, from http://books.google.co.ke/bookshl=en&id Kristi Keck, K, Bash, D, Hornick, E, Steinhauser, P. & Anderson, S. J. (2008). Palin comes out throwing punches. CNN politics. Retrieved November 25, 2008, from: http://edition.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/03/rnc.day/index.html Reynolds, B. (2008). US election diary: Politics of fear. Al Jazeera. Retrieved November 25, 2008, from: http://english.aljazeera.net/news/americas/2008/10/20081031201745460992.html Rosen, R. (2002). Politics of fear. San Francisco Chronicle, Monday December 30. retrieved November 25, 2008, from: http://www.commondreams.org/views02/1230-02.htm VandeHei, J. & Kurtz, H. (2004). The Politics of Fear: Kerry Adopts Bush Strategy of Stressing Dangers. Washington Post. Retrieved November 25, 2008, from: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A58117-2004Sep28.html Read More