After eating, wait an hour before getting in the pool...or else!
Ever heard that one?
As kids, we were often told seemingly harmless tales by parents in an effort to pursuade our behavior. Understandable, right? Maybe.
But, let's replace parents with politicians. And, then I would ask: At what point do these seemingly harmless tales become manipulative propaganda? And how can we tell the difference?
I've recently been thinking about the concept of "fear mongering."
Fear mongering is defined as:
- Raising or exciting alarms especially needlessly (Merriam-Webster Online)
- The use of fear to leverage the opinions and actions of others towards some end. The object of fear is sometimes exaggerated, and the use of fear mongering is often directed in a manner using repetition, in order to continuously reinforce the intended effects (Wikipedia)
We see fear mongering used as a tactic across party lines - and not just in this election. Remember the fear of Y2K? How about Anthrax?
Fear mongering is undoubtedly prevalent in this campaign as well, from the lowly bureaucrats to influential candidates. Here are two recent examples (with opposing party affiliations):
On Sept 25, Warren Buffet called the financial crisis "sort of an economic Pearl Harbor." Interesting, if not unusual, comparison.
On the issue of war, Governor Palin declared (Sept 9) in an interview that, "In order to stop Islamic extremists, those terrorists who would seek to destroy America, and our allies, we must do whatever it takes, and we must not blink..." Certainly paints a grim picture.
Anyone feel unsettled about our nation's future? Good. That's exactly what these statements are meant to do - unsettle Americans to the point of fear. Because fear is a powerful tool. People respond to fear.
So, how deep does it go? Does it stop with the economy? Terrorism? War? How else are the American people being controlled through fear? Flu strain epidemics? Harmful vaccinations? Social Security insecurities? Oil shortages? Nuclear weapons? Global warming? Indeed, many of these issues are relevant topics of debate and validate our need for democratic processes that result in the implementation of fair policies.
But, is fear a fair and ethical tactic of pursuasion?
I'd say it depends on who is casting the fear. And so I ask: What's the difference between a parent and a politician? ............................. Lipstick. Just kidding. :) The difference is, I always know my parents have my best interests in mind, but with politicians I often get the feeling that their political agenda, funders, career, and party platform edge out my interests by a pretty fair margin.
Surprised? Suspicious? Unsure? Well, however you feel, stop making that face...or it's going to stay like that!
Posts
2 comments:
Love this topic Jessica. Your point at the end is one of the key pillars in the matter. You know that your parents have your best interests in mind, but with others, that assurance is often lacking.
Fear mongering, in my opinion is a subset of what I refer to as "sound-bite" or "bumper-sticker" politics. Chances are that if one's beliefs, political or otherwise, can be summed up on a bumper sticker, I probably will not have much in common with that person. The serious issues that face our communities, nation, and world are far, far too complex to be reduced to a 12" x 4" self-adhesive backed, printed banner.
I would argue that fear of the type you are commenting on, is effective only to the extent that the population upon which it is perpetrated does not know any better. In other words, if we do not educate ourselves and elect people that wish to lead through educating the populace, we will continue to be subject to emotionally-laden claims whose purpose is to incite, rather than educate.
In a very real and sad way, we "get the politics we deserve/allow." Until people start to realize that the serious problems of our world require serious people with serious solutions and take the initiative to carefully examine that challenges that confront us, we will continue to be subjected to political rhetoric and fear-mongering.
Yesterday I was talking to a few ardent Republican (and subsequently McCain/Palin) supporters. They began talking about what what terrorists in the Middle East would do to this country if our military was not over there. I asked if they ever considered whether or not fear played a role in their views. They adamantly denied that Republicans used fear to prove points. (And to clarify, I mentioned to them that I felt that both parties do, without pinning such tactics on one party).
As I was considering this further, I read this statement made by Sarah Palin at a rally on October 4. She is speaking of Obama (who is often called "Barack Hussein Obama" on the campaign trail). Here it is:
"Our opponent though, is someone who sees America it seems as being so imperfect that he’s palling around with terrorists who would target their own country?”
"Palling around." Really? Are you trying to get Americans to believe that Obama is pals with terrorists? Aside from the offensive that brings toward Obama, I'd think that anyone in her audience would be offended that she would think they were dumb enough to buy such a ridiculous notion.
Again, I think Democrats do the same thing. I even put an example in this space at first. But nothing could come close to the ridiculous-ness of the "palling around" comment. Thus, it still made my argument look one sided. So alas, I'll just make this one a bit more one sided.
Post a Comment