On the art of fear-mongering (and the usefulness thereof)

Imagine you have a four year old son who calls you into his room at 1AM. He's afraid because he's quite sure there's someone under his bed. He heard a noise and he's convinced it's someone out to get him. You know that just a few weeks ago one of his classmates' house was robbed. But rather than reassuring your son you look at him and say, "Oh yes there's probably somebody under the bed. There are scary people all over and they really want to hurt us."

Sick, huh?

Yet that's precisely the kind of fathering that George Bush did to the country after the Sept 11 attacks, a tragedy most people consider the biggest historical turning point in the last 100 years.

In essence he said - "Yes people you should be afraid. They are legion. They are everywhere. And they are out to get us." Then he presented us with information demonstrating to us that he was right. He alternated this with "We are strong, we are good and we will win" messages without going into too much detail about how that would happen or even what win means.

In his 2003 State of the Union address Mr Bush used this tactic beautifully. He spends twenty nine paragraphs talking about his four main goals: creating a stronger economy, reducing dependence on foreign oil, bringing affordable healthcare to every American and creating more compassionate volunteer initiatives across the country, particularly for people with addictions.

(Hey those are pretty good ideas George!! Too bad you lost focus there, huh?)

But then Bush spent 39 paragraphs going into incredible detail about the the lurking evil that just may get us any day now, alternating this with mentions of our patriotic omnipotence that will prevail.

Why would a man spend so much energy telling the little boy, "Yep there's a shitload of Indians under the bed dying to scalp you - you should be scared"?

I believe one of the best reasons to be using and abusing fearful messages when one happens to be standing at the national pulpit is because it paralyzes people. When we are afraid we pull in, we shut down and we don't know where to turn or who to run to.

It's also a great way to sell a solution-based idea. This is the technique used by the wonderful life insurance companies who offer us maudlin photos of widowers and their children all dressed in black. The baseline reads something like "What would they do without you?"

Well we know what Bush wanted to sell us. He wanted to sell us a war that had nothing to do with September 11th. The more he repeated "Saddam Hussein, Saddam Hussein" alongside the fearful messages, the more the paralyzed masses readied themselves for an invasion.

Why am I bringing up all of this now?

Because John McCain comes from the same school and uses the same tactics. When asked about the war in Iraq he said "If we leave Iraq, they are going to follow us home."

Quite frankly I'm tired of this kind of jabber. I'm tired of black and white thinking.

We never just saved the world for democracy. And we rarely have just altruistic reasons behind our foreign policies. We have taken down democratically elected officials who we didn't like and have supported others in taking power in very non-democratic ways. We have murdered people rather than sending them to trial, a notion we normally sort of like to defend as American.

"They" are not all evil and "we" are not all good.

Doesn't America deserve a leader who doesn't infantilize her citizens? Isn't it time we stopped electing people who keep pulling out the boogey-man as a manipulative oratorical tool and instead focus on simple comprehensible solutions to real problems and a clear explanation of how to pay for them?

When I lived in Europe we all knew very clearly that there were a certain number of things that changed when a terrorist alert was high. Overnight all of the public wastebaskets were sealed shut. Packages over a certain weight had to be taken into the post office and scanned. Sensitive buildings were suddenly surrounded by national police.

Why didn't this happen in America? Besides the domestic airlines beefing up security, nothing much has changed in my life. (Oh yes, there is the way it has affected my jokes in Texas: at the Bush International Airport a mechanical voice reminds you every ten minutes or so that even your jokes may be taken as threats.)

And of course in the last few days Mr McCain is now closing the loop. Not only is the scarey boogey man of undefined terror just waiting to get us but members of his team are now more or less subtly frightening folks by insisting that Obama is a "they" (Muslim, terrorist, wonk) and not an "us" (Christian, patriot, willing to save the world for democracy).

"Yep - you better cry little boy - there are evil boogey men just under your bed and they are waiting for the opportunity to slit your throat. But you can trust me...."

An American Addiction: ahh the rush of it all!!!

Reading about Palin made me want to share some of my recent thoughts about the upcoming elections. I am aware that I stand to the left of most of America - and apparently most of California since we elected Arnold.
Twice!
I get tired of living in the minority and am shocked at some of the dog eat dog policies that come out of administrations that the majority elect. But being in the minority sometimes is part of democracy.
Even though I legally can live abroad - I choose not to leave the country. I think the main reason I stay here is that I feel like I am in the midst of a giant social experiment. I feel like we as a people are constantly trying to figure out who we are and how we want to be together -- usually in very bold, creative ways.

I've often entertained the idea that if only we had a leader who would take the time to explain complex concepts to mainstream America, rather than spouting ad slogans at them, that the majority would understand they are being economically shafted by the right and vote for the left.

I thought I saw that person in Obama.

For a long time I didn't understand why people watch Judge Judy or Springer - how they got pleasure out of seeing someone berate someone else willingly on TV.

I understood why gay men would walk around like uber-Hulks after decades of oppression but didn't really understand why when I went to Disneyland I saw legions of straight men dressed like tatooed soldiers and driving Hummers.

I didn't understand why in 20 years living in France I never got physically attacked by another person and within the first three months of living back in the US I was called a "Faggot" by a stranger in the street and had a gun held to my head by another - in a tony white neighborhood!

Today my theory is that we, as a people, are really addicted to drama, to adrenaline, to the rush. We love it when the stakes are high. We sell blockbuster killer movies, Grand Theft Auto software and amusement park thrill rides to the entire world. In this addiction there is a salient need for immediacy and little room for thought.

Our foreign policy has been one of "cleaning up the mess" - the Marines, the SWAT team, the COPS Show of the world. We're the bold ones who step in when every other country is sitting around talking policy.

The fact this this approach often serves our expansionist economic and political needs is no secret.

We do have incredibly innovative non-profits doing really interesting work around the world but they rarely make the news. And our government investment in international aid is peanuts compared to many European countries.

In this Pull-yourself-up by-the-bootstraps nation it would stand to reason that most folks in America thus equate "talking policy" to being wimpy, to not being strong. A "war hero"
trumps a university professor. A millionaire wins out over a community organizer ("Just what the hell is that anyway, Myrna?"). A feisty soccer mom with a forked tongue and a rags to riches frontiersman facade wins out over a college educated wonk.

The same goes for"wimpy" instutions: a national health care system that might lose money or public transportation that might need subsidies every year is a proof of failure. But bailing out the oh-so-ballsy mortgage companies is just a tweak in a strong economic policy!

Finally - destructive acts and words are far more stimulating to us than those that build consensus. We did a fair job taking out Hussein but aren't very good at keeping our A.D.D.-riddled national attention on nation-building. We get a much bigger rush out of zinger insults than we do out of interesting conversation - to such a point that our talking heads even cross ethical lines from time to time (Right Mr Imus?). Our prime time focus is on voting people off the island. What kind of reality show would actually show people working together?

There have been some really interesting articles about the construction of heterosexual masculine identity in America and mostly about how it's focused on "Not being a fag". But interestingly studies show straight guys aren't just defending against appearing attracted to the same sex - they are defending against any kind of behavior that may be perceived as soft, gentle, caring or emotional.

And these same guys are running many American institutions: shut down turbo-thugs with suits.

I remember years ago talking with NGO friends who had just spent all day at a UN-sponsored negotiation table in Geneva to bring AIDS meds to Africa. The big player at the table was the US which had recently earmarked a new budget for this. My buddies from all over the world told me of the meager gains they had made in the negotiation. When I asked why, they responded: "Because the Americans are sharks! They're very cunning and they run their administration like a corporation."

It seems to me that we are really at a moment in our history when we get to choose a different way of being in the world. I'm not sure that the majority of Americans are ready for such a big change - I'm not sure anymore if Obama is ready to personify that change.

I yearn for a president who has the balls to say "I don't know", "Let's do the long difficult alliance-building work rather than the rushing in", "Let's turn half of our military into the peace corps - and then send them to the 20% of America who lives below the poverty level."

I'm hoping Obama is that man.