What does it say about us, as a society, when a truthful statement - or one that reflects, at least, some commonly accepted wisdom - is so politically unacceptable that it causes a minor firestorm in the campaign of a major party candidate?
Charlie Black, a top adviser to John McCain, told Fortune Magazine the other day that a terrorist attack on the US would be a boon to the McCain campaign. McCain hurried to distance himself from the statements, and Black apologized - but for what, exactly?
Black's comments, while politically ill-advised, were based on two plain facts. First: the electorate has historically tended to give the GOP higher marks on national security. That tendency may no longer be true, thanks to the misadventures of George W. Bush and company, so Black might be behind the times, but no one's giving him grief for that. He got in trouble not because of what he said, but because he said it.
Second: it is a fact that the Bush administration (with plenty of complicity from Congress) has systematically used fear tactics to manipulate public opinion and justify its policies. However morally and ethically wrong that may be - and the tactics do come right out of Hitler's playbook - it is a fact. We have been deceived and manipulated ever since 9/11. We all know it. All Charlie Black did was acknowledge it, and express his belief that the public still has enough wool pulled over its eyes, even after the Iraq debacle, that another terrorist attack on the US "would be a big advantage to [McCain]."
Personally, I think enough of us have brushed away the wool to make Black's thinking outmoded. I also think we, the public, have more common sense than many political strategists give us credit for. Even as we condemn the Republican leadership for the mess they've gotten us into over the past seven years (and that includes, in no small measure, Senator McCain), we recognize, just as Black does, that the fearmongering was effective and gave a big boost to the Republican administration's misguided policies.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - BA
Whatever McCain said or distanced himself from after he said it. Domestically, the country becomes better when a the democrats run stuff because they are usually for the common good. And Internationally we can become better, too, depends on who the actual President is. The republicans works to line their own pockets, diminish the middle class to the working poor, and usually claim that because they are esteemed republicans they are better morally. Ha, see Mark Foley, Dave Vitter, Larry Craig, really moralistic guys. Yeah, the GOP is sure full of themselves, so much so, that they seem to forget anything that conveniences them in front of congress or the justice department. They remember stuff real well when writing a book or something that helps line their pockets, though. So, let's just remember to vote for the guy who cares more about the top 1 or 2 percent of the population and screw everyone else to death. The guys who are in the pockets of big oil, the AMA, anything that makes big money, who usually touts big tax cuts (that mostly benefits the rich, although, I guess people don't realize that, they like the "fuzzy math" I guess) and promises to create things for the benefit of the American people, only to not be able to actually fund it (i.e. No Child Left Behind Act) when their economic plan falls to pieces, for the bigger need to push to republican agenda, big military, next worse thing to a dictator and possibly have a guy like Dick Cheney as his main advisor. Thank you for listening.
2 - El Bicho
"I also think we, the public, have more common sense than many political strategists give us credit for."
Based on what?
3 - BA
Yeah,
One thing I could point out is that these terrorist organizations know what they are doing when they do stuff. They also know that they can help manipulate American politics with their actions. Like when Iran let the Hostages go the day Jimmy Carter left office. They manipulated our politics and they knew it. And, with the help our own media that loves stories like that, so they can concentrate on what's really important to them, the ratings.(i.e. The early version of Nightline with Frank Reynolds and soon after Ted Koppel) Did we as a whole know? I, for one, always felt that way.
4 - Baritone
I don't agree that it's a given that McCain would in fact benefit from such an attack. One of the few talking points that the Bushies, and McCain have is that NO such attack has taken place under their watch. The Spanish voted out their government in the aftermath of the bombings there. Having citizens blown into pink mist is not, IMO a vote getter.
Remember also, those working for a campaign are not necessarily the voice of a campaign. Any and all opinions coming out of any campaign should be vetted by those charged with such matters, including the candidate before anyone elects on their own stead to run off at the mouth. Let the candidate make any and all opinion statements. If he (or she) sticks his or her foot in it, then so be it. I never fail to be amazed at how many stupid things are said and done by people attached to political campaigns, let alone the candidates themselves. I guess it's difficult to stamp down big egos.
One cannot expect such a statement to get a pass, regardless of its veracity - or lack of it - when mountains are made out the mole hills of flag pins and hand bumps.
B-tone
5 - Pablo
re BA post #3
"One thing I could point out is that these terrorist organizations know what they are doing when they do stuff. They also know that they can help manipulate American politics with their actions. Like when Iran let the Hostages go the day Jimmy Carter left office. They manipulated our politics and they knew it."
My history sees it a bit different, there was a little thing called the "October Surprise" that involved certain unnamed republicans makin a deal with the ole Ayatollah as I recall, hmmm I wonder who the terrorists really are. Manipulate politics, I call it treason, but you can call it that if ya want. :)
6 - Clavos
Hey, pablito, what's a little bit of treason here and there?
It helps to keep things humming...
7 - Doug Hunter
Typical propaganda piece from the left. We have strawmen, lies, inciting class hatred, and references to Hitler. Nice job, you might want to throw in some racial agitation next time, just consider it icing on the cake
8 - Doug Hunter
Oh, but remember that's not inciting fear, inciting fear is when Bush had those planes flown into those buildings because he's pure evil and only wants to wreak havoc and destruction on humanity like all capitalists.
9 - Christopher Rose
Doug, having read the whole piece, it wasn't an attack on Mr Black. Is your cynicism about the left running on a hair trigger or did you not actually read the article?
The fear that Bush has exploited so skilfully since 9/11 had nothing to do with the attack on the twin towers but the post attack reaction.
10 - Mooja
Another Bush to Hitler comparison. The hate will consume you. You guys really have to get over it.
11 - Jon Sobel
Hitler comparisons are perfectly valid, when used with specificity, as here. It's you knee-jerk right-wingers who can't separate your emotions from your thoughts when it comes to world history.
12 - Dave Nalle
Some interesting observations here, but...
it is a fact that the Bush administration (with plenty of complicity from Congress) has systematically used fear tactics to manipulate public opinion and justify its policies.
This particular statement is fundamentally untrue. While the Bush administration may have tried to manipulate public opinion to justify its policies (just like any administration or political group), the charge of fearmongering still doesn't make any sense. If anything the Bush administration has downplayed the very real threats in the world and gone out of their way to assure us that everything is okay and that we're being proactive to prevent another 9/11.
In fact, the essence of their manipulation of the public is the generation not of fear, but of a false sense of confidence in the government to protect out security, which they have demonstrated very little ability to actually do.
Dave
13 - Dr Dreadful
there was a little thing called the "October Surprise" that involved certain unnamed republicans makin a deal with the ole Ayatollah as I recall, hmmm I wonder who the terrorists really are.
The 'October Surprise' seems to have run its course as an election tactic. Remember how the Bush admin was going to pull bin Laden out of a hat just before the '04 election? Never happened.
Now, was that because:
a)
BushRove realized that producing Osama at that point would have been crassly obvious to anyone but an idiot, orb) because bin Laden had not then, and still has not, been captured?
You decide.
Also, as B-Tone observes, a national crisis right before an election doesn't guarantee an incumbent victory, as we saw in Spain in '03. The electorate - rightly or wrongly - held Aznar's government responsible for attracting Islamic terrorists to Madrid, and kicked them out.
14 - Clavos
Nobody in my (admittedly limited) circle of friends is even remotely close to being afraid of the threat of terrorism; it's just not part of most American's lives, no matter how much the administration allegedly "fearmongers." As I drive around town, work, go shopping, etc., day after day I never run into anyone who is in fear of terrorists.
So, if the administration is in fact "fearmongering," they need to get a new mongerer; the current one is incredibly inept, because we're not afraid.
That's the main flaw in the terrorists' strategy; few people outside the Islamic countries are terrified; even the Europeans, who have been attacked much more than the US, are not in "terror."
Most people realize "we have nothing to fear but fear itself."
Now, the price of oil? We're ALL terrified.
15 - Jon Sobel
Dave, do you remember those color-coded terror alerts that were conveniently elevated whenever the public needed to be distracted from something else? More recent examples: claims that complying with FISA would undermine our ability to track terrorists; claims that the Iraq insurgency represented a threat to national and world security and suggestions that Al Qaeda leaders could gain power equivalent to Hilter, Stalin, and Pol Pot; using politically charged terms like "appeasement"; I could go on and on with examples.
16 - bliffle
Doug,
Parody is a delicate art form that requires enticement, not command, to make it's point. When used to bludgeon people it becomes incoherent mush, leaving the reader unsure what the tyro parodist was saying and concluding that it wasn't worth reading.
Not that there's anything wrong with that!
17 - BA
Yeah, but The Bush Administration, whenever they are trying to push the agenda they bring up "9/11" almost every time. Their agenda seems to include illegal wiretapping of Americans, and good old congress doesn't raise a finger to stop it, coincidentally or not. Neither would the "refreshed" right wing justice department. Among a lot of other things designed to take away our civil liberties. But, as long as the republicans remain in office I guess we're supposed to feel safe. While all our unrelated civil liberties slowly disappear.
Also, it wouldn't take wiretapping to make us secure it would just take extra security, in general. Especially, as decided seemingly...after the fact that more security at airports were necessary, inconvenient but necessary. And a lot of other security implementations that the Bush Administration or corporations(i.e. big business) don't want. Like at the ports. Still not enough security there. But I guess somehow that makes wiretapping ok. Geesh
18 - Jon Sobel
Good point Clavos, it's interested to note how effective or ineffective the fearmongering has been. I claim that it has been effective, not so much in how we live our day to day lives - you're right, we don't walk around "afraid" of terrorism on a daily basis - but in what we (the collective we), incited by a compliant and complicit mainstream media, tend to believe: namely, that it's OK for us to become gradually a less and less democratic society in the name of "security."
19 - Andy Marsh
To comment #17. As I'm very fond of telling my daughters.....
...no yeahbutts!!!!!
20 - Dr Dreadful
Dave:
...a false sense of confidence in the government to protect out security, which they have demonstrated very little ability to actually do.
So why haven't there been any successful terror attacks on US soil since 9/11? Is it because the various law enforcement and intelligence agencies are in fact very effective in protecting our security, or because the assorted would-be terrorists are even more inept than they are?
...Or because said terrorists never were much of a threat in the first place?
21 - Baritone
I disagree with Dave to the extent that, as I see it, the Bushies have been performing a balancing act with regard to maintaining both a sense of fear and a sense of security pretty much running concomitantly and contradictorily.
I agree with Clav in that I know of no one who is quaking in fear of eminent attack. Of course the fact is there is no way one can go about functioning in daily life in constant fear. There is no way one can really prepare for an attack, in any case.
Look at what happens in Iraq, or even in Israel. There is very real, palpable danger of such attacks pretty much 24/7. Yet people still go about their day to day lives, going to market places, meeting and eating in restaurants, standing on line for jobs, walking in funeral processions. Life goes on. Short of open fighting, artillery barrages and the like which would send people scurrying for cover, people still must work and eat and live their lives.
Here in the U.S., the likelyhood of being the victim of a terrorist attack is probably less than the odds of being struck by lightning, or getting a good meal at Dennys.
I don't see that the Bushies have succeeded much in either vein. While we haven't been victimized within our borders since 9/11, there really has been little accomplished in the way of security measures that would effectively prevent some kind of attack via our seaports. Even attacks via air transportation is still a very real possibility if the various news organizations are correct in a number of reports which recount security failures at airports. Overall, it just leaves me more convinced of the general ineptitude of the Bush administration.
B-tone
22 - Clavos
Point taken, Jon, but I still wonder how much of that complicity is spelled A P A T H Y?
The reason I question the administration's efficacy in molding and indoctrinating the public is its abysmally low ratings with that public. I truly doubt that very many people believe anything the Bush people tell them (assuming, of course, that they are even listening).
Frankly, I have a rather low opinion (as you may have seen on these threads) of the American public's attention span on the best of days.
23 - BA
ok than sutract that part of it.
24 - Jon Sobel
The reason I question the administration's efficacy in molding and indoctrinating the public is its abysmally low ratings with that public.
The two factors might not be as synchronous as all that. Maybe they don't have to be smart or well thought of to be successful at certain things. Between the media, and natural human tendencies, maybe it doesn't take an Einstein to manipulate public attitudes and feelings. And lack of popularity doesn't necessarily mean ineffectiveness in all things.
25 - Dr Dreadful
I have a rather low opinion ... of the American public's attention span on the best of days.
So do the mass media - as witness the fact that you can't watch a goddamned TV show for ten freaking minutes without it being interrupted for commercials.
But it's a chicken-and-egg scenario: are TV programs structured that way because the American public has a short attention span, or have people been conditioned to have a short attention span by the structure of the programs?
We'll be right back after these messages.