The Republicans like to deride liberals, Democrats, and most of our allies' governments for espousing policies that they lump together under the heading of the "mommy state." Apparently this is supposed to represent a smothering, overprotective, busybodyish interference with the normal and right and just independence of every man--which may well say far more about the kind of home and family life most Republicans uh, enjoy, than it says about liberals, Democrats, or our allies' policies.
Be that as it may, I intend to argue that the Republicans' policies, at least since the start of the Shrubbery (if not before), have tended toward or been designed to foster, a mommy-type society of their own making. Their version might more accurately be termed a "Mommy, I've wet the bed" society, however, because the major (if not the exclusive) motivating factor underlying the rubber-stamp Republicans' policies, politics, campaign ads, party platforms, etc., is fear. Gut-wrenching, stomach-churning, flop-sweat-inducing fear.
Consider a few of the Bushoviki's greatest hits if you doubt my premise. Global war on terra? Premised on the need to fear (a) all Muslims, regardless of belief status, sect, creed, or citizenship; (b) all brown people, because they just might be Muslims; (c) anybody a citizen of, living in, or traveling from, certain parts of the world, ditto (unless, of course, they happen to be wealthy oil sheikhs or their relatives from such fun-loving, modern democratic states like Kuwait or Saudi Arabia). Check.
How about immigration policy? Premised on the need to fear (a) all brown people (unless they happen to be Cubans who've come ashore illegally, or want to play beisbol in America), because they just might be illegal immigrants, coming here to steal our jobs and destroy our national culture; and (b) anyone not obviously white, trying to cross our southern border, ditto. Check.
Homeland security? Premised on the need to fear (a) all Muslims, regardless of belief status, sect, creed, or citizenship; (b) all brown people, because they just might be Muslims; (c) anybody a citizen of, living in, or traveling from, certain parts of the world, ditto (unless, of course, they happen to be wealthy oil sheikhs or their relatives from such fun-loving, modern democratic states like Kuwait or Saudi Arabia); (d) anybody who even looks like s/he might be Muslim, or a citizen of the Middle East, or has just come back from the Middle East, or is trying to come back from the Middle East, or going to the Middle East, or trying to go to the Middle East, ditto; (e) anybody wearing a funny headdress or strange garments, talking funny, who even looks like s/he might be Muslim, yada, yada, yada, ditto. Check.
Partisan politics? Premised on the need to fear (a) absolutely everybody who doesn't think exactly like the Dear Leader does, especially Democrats, liberals, feminists, homosexuals, Hollywood celebrities, foreign leaders, cultural icons, and the like, because dissenting from the Dear Leader's thought is treason, and that starts with "T," which stands for "trouble"; (b) absolutely everybody who thinks for himself or herself, rather than letting the Dear Leader and his fine minions at Faux News tell them what to think, ditto; (c) absolutely anybody who doesn't agree that the United States has a God-given right to stomp the shit out of other nations, parts of nations, groups, peoples, or any other goddamn thing it wants to stomp, just because we think they might be up to something, because suggesting that America doesn't have a divine mandate to rule the world, to set rules for everyone else that it does not itself follow, and to throw its weight around like the proverbial schoolyard bully--who just happens to have nuclear weapons and a willingness to use them--is treason, and that starts with "T," which stands for "trouble." Check.
It's a hell of a lot easier to get people to fear something (especially if you've guaranteed, by sabotaging the educational system over the last several decades, that they're not properly equipped to understand it) than it is to get them to pay attention to a reasoned debate of real issues. Which is why reasoned debate and real issues are two things you will never see in anything emanating from the modern Republican Party. They think reasoned debate (like facts, logic, respect for the rule of law, and virtually everything else they've pissed on from a great height over the last six years) is for sissies. It's far simpler, and considerably more in keeping with their angry personae, to throw mud by the bucketful--and then pretend they accidentally kicked that bucket of slime all over their opponent while bending over trying to help a poor person lift himself or herself up by the bootstraps. And they fear real issues most of all, because they know that if they ever had to talk about them or about their record in dealing with them appropriately, they could write the only book shorter and more devoid of content than the itemized listing of every rational thought that has ever passed through Preznit Farty McFlightsuit's empty head.
I think there are signs afoot, however, that this whole piss-yourself-in-fear-because-I-told-you-to strategery isn't working quite as well as it used to for Unca Karl, Darth Cheney, and the rest of the Shrubbery. Bush didn't even get a tiny dead-cat bounce in the approval ratings department after his best bud Tony Blair quashed that terrorist plot in Britain. In fact, all he got was a within-the-margin transient upward spike of about two points. And I'd just love to see the day-to-day tracking polls over the next few days as people digest the Potemkin preznit's visit to the Potemkin villages that are about the only thing left standing on the Gulf coast after he and his band of bungling baboons fell asleep at the switch this time last year.
More and more people are coming to trust the Worst. President. Ever. less and less on a widening range of topics. National security and the war on terra used to be Bushie's best issues. While he still ranks higher on those two questions than on virtually everything else, his numbers are slipping toward (or below) the magic 50% approval threshhold. People were willing to put up with enhanced security at airports, but they're balking at this laughably inadequate ban on most liquids, and I don't suspect they're going to be too happy (Lord knows I'm not!) about having to send their shoes, along with just about everything else they own, through the X-ray machines--all in separate trays, of course, and with 47,000 other people ahead and behind them, trying to get their shit properly spread out, through the checkpoint, and then securely back in their carry-on luggage before it gets stolen or they miss their flight. Worse (for the Bushies, anyway), they're beginning to catch on to the fact that all of these added hassles (a) really don't enhance our in-flight security all that much, (b) are more in the way of reaction to the last terror attacks, instead of being prophylaxis against the next one(s), and (c) are primarily meant both to add to our fear quotient, but more importantly to draw our attention away from the myriads of other ways in which our mommy-society Republican rubber-stamp government is failing to protect us.
Then there was the curious incident of the train photographs. On Monday as I drove in to work, I heard a story on the local NPR station which reported that the Union Pacific Railroad (which runs, among other things, the commuter rail line from this part of the western suburbs into Chicago proper) had announced a ban on taking photographs of any of its trains from those commuter platforms. The reason behind the ban was allegedly....wait for it......security concerns. As the NPR announcer rightly pointed out, however, the people who might be standing on commuter train platforms (or anywhere else) taking pictures of trains going by were exactly the kind of people that any reasonable railroad official would want to have on his or her side--because they were far more likely to notice when something was amiss with one of their trains.
Then yesterday morning, again as I was driving to work, I heard that same NPR announcer reporting that Union Pacific had rescinded its photography ban, which was apparently (at least according to that Chicago Tribune story I've linked to) put in place last month. No reason for dropping the ban was given, though I suspect that a cease-and-desist letter from the ACLU, coupled with a threat to sue the railroad if they didn't cease and desist, might have had something to do with it. I also have to wonder whether the initial ban wasn't prompted so much by concerns about securing the rail lines against terrorists as it may have been from a desire on the part of the railroad to shield itself from liability in the case of an accident (of which there have been a distressing number on Metra trains this past year and more). If you can bust people for taking pictures of your trains in action, they're far less likely to have incriminating photographic evidence of wrongdoing, negligence, or malfeasance that can bite you in the ass in an insurance lawsuit.
And I just love the stipulation that photography of Metra or UPRR trains from public property is OK, as long as the photographer is willing to be questioned by the police about his or her activities. Something tells me it won't be long until I'm listening to a third NPR story, reporting on the dropping of that blatantly unconstitutional restriction.
Banning photography of trains in operation makes as little sense as the Shrubbery's recent decision to start reclassifying and/or redacting data on our obsolete missile systems that I wrote about 10 days ago. But it makes perfect sense when viewed through the lens of an ideology, a party, and a political apparatus that has as its primary goal to make American citizens afraid of their own shadows. That seems to be the only way this band of bungling buffoons can get themselves elected, or keep themselves in power once they've managed to steal it. It certainly explains how they managed to get so many Americans to vote against their own economic and self-interest in 2000, 2002, and 2004. I live in hopes that this time the strategery will fail every bit as spectacularly as the Shrubbery has at every project it's put its hand to since stealing power six years ago.
(Cross-posted from Musing's musings.)