I have said the rovians use the “fear and smear” tactic, when it comes to discrediting their opponents on the “terror” issue. And I have suggested that the Dems need to develop some messages and a “frame” to contest this tactic, as we know it is going to come. I also believe we need to identify some credible messengers and begin to put them forward now to enhance their credibility and stature in the months ahead. As we do this, Joshua Holland presents a dilemma:
“If we acknowledge that it was the fear factor, not the culture warriors’ immoral “moral issues” that swung the last election, aren’t we playing into the GOP’s hands by reinforcing that sense of imminent danger? On the other hand, given the political culture we’ve been dealt, aren’t there a lot of good reasons to hit the security issue and hit it hard?”
But then he acknowledges that he’s of two minds:
“I can’t tell you how refreshing it would be to hear someone channel FDR by standing up and saying, “Look, of course terrorism is a real threat, but no nation has ever been brought down by it. Our enemy is small in number and widely disbursed. We’re the most powerful nation in the history of the world, and we’ve suffered two terrorist attacks by outsiders in the past 15 years. Many societies have dealt with far more frequent attacks. We pay taxes that buy an enormous army and a huge national security infrastructure. Let’s keep this thing in perspective; we should have dealt with this from the start with law enforcement, intelligence and, where necessary, Special Forces operations.
But wouldn’t saying such a thing be political suicide? Wouldn’t the right broadcast it everywhere as evidence that progressives don’t take security seriously?
And didn’t Sun Tsu say that you should hit a weak enemy (like a GOP Congress holding a 34% approval rating supporting a Republican president with the approval of 42% of the public) at his strongest point?”
What say you?
<br /
>Update [2006-2-7 8:4:36 by howieinseattle]: Just got tipped to this little gem by Annie Robbins:
“Rove counting heads on the Senate Judiciary Committee: The White House has been twisting arms to ensure that no Republican member votes against President Bush in the Senate Judiciary Committee’s investigation of the administration’s unauthorized wiretapping.The sources said the administration has been alarmed over the damage that could result from the Senate hearings, which began on Monday, Feb. 6. They said the defection of even a handful of Republican committee members could result in a determination that the president violated the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Such a determination could lead to impeachment proceedings. Over the last few weeks, Mr. Rove has been calling in virtually every Republican on the Senate committee as well as the leadership in Congress. The sources said Mr. Rove’s message has been that a vote against Mr. Bush would destroy GOP prospects in congressional elections. The sources said the White House has offered to help loyalists with money and free publicity, such as appearances and photo-ops with the president.
Those deemed disloyal to Mr. Rove would appear on his blacklist. The sources said dozens of GOP members in the House and Senate are on that list.
So far, only a handful of GOP senators have questioned Mr. Rove’s tactics.
Some have raised doubts about Mr. Rove’s strategy of painting the Democrats, who have opposed unwarranted surveillance, as being dismissive of the threat posed by al Qaeda terrorists.
“Well, I didn’t like what Mr. Rove said, because it frames terrorism and the issue of terrorism and everything that goes with it, whether it’s the renewal of the Patriot Act or the NSA wiretapping, in a political context,” said Sen. Chuck Hagel, Nebraska Republican.”
We can guess one name on the list. Arianna says,
“So far, the Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee have adopted a strong tone with Gonzales. But Democrats have an ignominious recent history of coming out of the gate hard, then quickly sounding retreat as soon as the White House cries “soft on defense!”
This time, they need to stay on the offensive, making the case every chance they can that our national security is being undercut by Bush’s lawbreaking and lies.”
Cross-posted at www.seattlefordean.com and www.howieinseattle.com.
Well, I reckon that if you wait until the elections are upon us to confront it, that’d be too late 😉
So, someone had best figure it out soon.
You are Good, Jon. Couldn’t agree more—Precisely why I am thinking about/posting on this!
Republicans deserted Bush on torture, and it looks like some of them are going to desert him on NSA. I think this is shaping up as a winner for Democrats.
This is going to sound simplistic, but the best way to confront the fear factor is to be unafraid oneself, and that’s been our problem, hasn’t it? Scared little Democrats cowering before the big bad Republicans. If more of our guys and gals had the consistent confidence and mental clarity of a leader like the Gov. of Montana, Brian Schweitzer, we wouldn’t even be asking the question.
After reading your update, I’m thinking that most Repubs in Congress are just as scared as most Dems. Your update illustrates that the diff between them is in the forcefulness and effectiveness of their leadership. We have better values than they do; imagine what we could do with and for those values if we had a Good Guy equiv. of Rove.
Maybe it’s good that the “fear factor” is somewhat bi-partisan. This may help shine some light into the tunnel. I don’t see any light at the other end yet, but I’m trying to stay hopeful.
I don’t see any light down there, either, dammit. Maybe somebody else does. Maybe Fitz is carrying it.
maybe this little brush fire grass roots action in Newfane, Vermont got Rove into action.
(via commondreams)
“Newfane Resolution Seeks to Impeach President”
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/0205-04.htm
btw, Rove twistng the arms of 6 senators? I’d consider it just irony if Rove got his arm wrapped by some erm indict handcuffs – like before the hearings end.
Fitz, are we there yet?
Are you disgusted as we are?
The ethical implications are just staggering. The judiciary committee being swayed by politics!
My sarcasm is broken.
How do you confront the fear factor?
In response, we have to see this for what it is- a plot from a western movie. yes, I know it sounds trite, but I think this is the gist of what is going on:
A nice little town is gaining prosperity, everyone is getting along and putting some money in the bank, then a bunch of outlaws move into town. They are a rough bunch- they take advantage of the trust of the townspeople, they lie, they destroy things, and basically dare anyone to do anything about it. They run the Sheriff out of town & put their own man in law enforcement & judge. They take over the town council by stealing elections, and the few remaining council members refuse to stand up to them. The townspeople try to work with them, to compromise, but every compromise, once agreed upon, is ignored. Now people are getting killed, there is no money in the bank because the gang took it all, they are taking the land of the farmers, and the townspeople are scared of retaliation, as they see their town being destroyed. The gang attacks people one at a time, to keep them all cowed into submission and to make examples of those who dare to stand up to them. The day finally comes when the townspeople realize that it is all or nothing, and they rise en mass to drive the gang out of town, led by the actions of a single, honest man. Think “Liberty Valence”.
And that is what is going on. Buscho will have to be driven from power. They will not compromise, they will lie, steal & kill, and dare us to do anything about it. We have proven that words don’t work with them. We waste time arguing amoungst ourselves about what to do, even as we see our representatives fail again and again to do anything to stop the rape of America.
I can’t see the next step, but I think it will involve us bypassing our representatives and taking action ourselves. Do we march on Washington? Do we show up at our representatives’ doors and make them get a spine? But the time for words is over, that is for certain. the only thing that will work is for us to mass together and take action as one. There are more of us than them, and they know we are afraid to take action. This has to change. Now.
Ideas?
If I were working on strategy to neutralize the deleterious effects of the wingnut propaganda machine’s relentless inculcation of fear into the public psyche, I might start by acknowledging that many, (but not all), of the things they are talking about are indeed scary, but that the real problem with their rhetoric and their agenda is that their proposed solutions for these fearsome problems are actually more scary because they have been making things more dangerous, more scary, instead of better. Then one could run down the list of disastrous decisions and actions taken by this Bush regime and point out that in all aspects, every situation they’ve turned their attention to has gotten worse, whether it’s war and terrorism, Iraq, healthcare, the environment, employment, the economy, etc.
Then I might search for a way to make a simple point about fear itself; that point being that the worst effect fear has on us is that it leads us to react to things unthinkingly, it leads us to abandon reason, to react emotionally; fear quite often prevents us from using our intelligence to respond to threats effectively. We become herd animals, blindly fleeing, or blindly attacking without thinking. That fear makes us do stupid things, and so the way to confront fear, the way to deal with fearful situations, is to redouble our efforts to understand exactly what’s going on, rather than succumbing to the knee jerk, “fight or flight”, “running around like a chicken with our head cut off” urge that so many of those who use fear to manipulate us seek to accomplish.
Fear can be an important and beneficial thing, but history shows us that when we are tricked into fearing the wrong things for the wrong reasons catastrophe is the result.
Coming a bit late to the discussion – I do hope you will bring this “fear” factor and “national security” issue to our attention regularly.
I think Bush’s “strength” on security is faulty and vulnerable to attack.
Now there have been lots of diaries and front page posting on the foolishness of Bush’s national security, e.g., war on Iraq. We are given facts and logical arguments, but those don’t work well at all in election-speak.
In addition, there has been a concerted effort by Bush, his administration, and his sycophants to paint the enemy as Muslims/middle easterners, creating a religious/ethnic fear factor. All the pictures of rioting people, burning buildings, etc. just builds that fear.
One thing Bush has not done with his “security” is involve people directly – no war bonds, no metal collection places, no sense of contribution at all. It has all gone corporate. He is posing as Daddy taking care of us all.
We also know his “security” is sucking up all kinds of resources and program funding, putting people in, if not completely dire straits, then certainly strained. They are struggling to take care of family. This is a very direct, daily experienced fear.
So how to defuse this “Bush the Defender?” How about some questions:
“What good is Bush’s national security when you’re afraid your kids will get sick?”
“What good is Bush’s national security when you’re afraid to open the heating bill?”
“What good is Bush’s national security when you’re afraid you(r) won’t make rent/going to lose the house?”
“What good is Bush’s national security when your job is going overseas?”
“What good is Bush’s national security when we’re unprepared for hurricanes?”
“What good is Bush’s ‘National Security’ when we can’t take care of our own? We need common sense National Security, for the good of us all.”
That works for me!
What good is Bush’s security when he has to spy on the bad guys over here, who he is supposedly keeping over there?
For extra credit on how to “frame” responses to the “fear card,” see this new post from Susan C. Strong, “How to take the latest framing buzz.” Then do a diary on it for us! You have twenty four hours! Let us know when you’re done.
We should stop saying “9/11” and “post-9/11”. It’s their fear-word, their power-grabbing word, their Cosmic Divide in Human History word. Let’s drop it.
Focus it: “the al Qaeda attack”
Narrow it: “after the Trade Center attack”
Remind them of a Bush failure: “in the years since bin Laden attacked…”
Almost anything is better than saying “9/11”. If you agree, please make similar suggestions to writers when the occasion arises.