Over the past week and a half, the message of the McCain/ Palin campaign has sharply turned from issue-oriented to questioning the patriotism and character of Barack Obama. It seems with each waking morning, I login into my computer and begin to fire up that complex series of tubes, and I log into my favorite news sites to discover another veiled question about Obama’s character has been tossed to a crowd at the newest campaign stop of either John McCain or Sarah Palin. The news media has begun to question this tactic in past few days, and I have heard it argued by several republican strategists that this it is perfectly acceptable to try to play on the innate fears of those who are unsure about Barack Obama’s background, in hopes of turning this campaign around. However, the media is not going far enough in their investigations into the potential dangers of such rhetoric on an increasingly fearful population, or the potential dangers of firing up crowds with hateful thoughts about those that may be different from themselves. Patriotism walks a fine line, and this line can easily be crossed without taking the proper care with one’s words. Fear begets more fear, and a few unguarded words can turn one’s patriotism into nationalism, nativism, and even vigilantism.
Ever since the heinous acts of September 11th brought the realization of terrorism to millions of Americans, a state of fear has swept our nation. The Bush administration played on that fear to obtain re-election in 2004, and the McCain campaign is attempting to reactivate that fear to push past the waning support that eight years of Bush policies have brought on the Republican Party. Bill Ayers has been brought to the forefront, and Barack Obama’s middle name has repeatedly been invoked to tap into that fear of terrorism, and paint Obama as a terrorist for having an Arab middle name, and having once served on an education board with a 1960s radical.
So, as the attempts to question Obama’s patriotism continue, the shouts we hear from the crowds are becoming much worse. One man shouted that Obama was a "terrorist", at a New Mexico rally for John McCain, and another shouted "kill him" in response to Sarah Palin’s accusations that Ayers had launched Obama’s career. However this is only the "tip of the iceberg", to use a horrible cliché, and the much more dangerous part is still under the water.
Having received my Bachelor’s degree in History, when I see events unfold, I begin to look backwards for some type of example of the possibilities of events to come. As the shouts from the audience, and the comments of the rally attendees in Ohio began to air, I immediately was drawn to the examples of the danger of this rhetoric in the first of two "red scares" our nation has already experienced.
As revolution toppled Czarist Russia, the chaos of civil war gave way for the emergence of the first government based on Marxist theory. Communism had swept Russia, and when the former ally broke away from the war in Europe, panic began to take hold in the United States. As communism began to gain popularity in America, particularly in the labor movements, the fear of a "Bolshevik type" rebellion happening within the United States caused a shift away from typical American idealism. This coupled with nearly ten million new immigrants from central Europe, and the fear that those immigrants were potential subversive agents of the German government spread fear across the United States and momentarily shifted it towards a society where persecution and vigilantism became acceptable. In his article on the first "red scare" Stanley Coben states that:
"At a victory loan pageant in the District of Columbia on May 6, 1919, a man refused to rise for the playing of ‘The Star-Spangled Banner.’ As soon as the national anthem was completed an enraged sailor fired three shots into the unpatriotic spectator’s back.
Stanley Coben, "A Study in Nativism: The American Red Scare of 1919-20", Political Science Quarterly, 79:1, (Mar. 1964),
However, rather than shock overtaking the crowd at having witnessed such an event, the crowd applauded the sailor for this act. The man was seen as unpatriotic, and because of that , he was a suspected communist, and this sailor had just served as judge, jury, and executioner. The fear that had overtaken America allowed for the crowd to find this behavior acceptable. The incident was reported in the Washington Post at the time. Unfortunately, this was not an isolated incident.
In Centralia, Washington on Armistice Day in 1919, The International Workers of the World union hall was attacked by an armed mob. The I.W.W., more commonly referred to as the Wobblies, included member with affiliations to socialists and anarchists. It had become one of the more radical unions. The picture below from the digital archives at the University of Washington, describes the scene:
Oddly enough, not everyone saw the horror in this act, and one of the Washington State Supreme Court justices even publicly lauded the mob for their bravery.
In his article cited earlier Stanley Coben tells of another case :
In February of the same year, a jury in Hammond, Indiana, took two minutes to acquit the assassin of an alien who yelled, "To Hell with the United States."
Stanley Coben, "A Study in Nativism: The American Red Scare of 1919-20", Political Science Quarterly, 79:1, (Mar. 1964),
We have seen several counts of violence erupt on television throughout the years, as people from a specific race, ethnicity, or religion are targeted for being un-American. The rhetoric is dangerous, but not just because of the violence.
Civil Liberties are also in danger, as we have seen with the passage of the FISA bill, or the increased "security" which is more invasive than protective when entering the airports. This too happened in the First "Red Scare". For instance, Eugene Debs, an American socialist, and multi-time candidate for the office of the Presidency, who was jailed under the Espionage Act of 1917 for attempting, in a speech, to convince young men not to sign up for the draft. The U.S. Supreme Court upheld that sentence in the case of Schenk vs. The United States. Just one more case Palin didn’t know about.
In his philosophical works entitled The Social Contract, Jean Jacques Rousseau summed up this behavior when he said: "
[a]s soon as it is possible to disobey with impunity, disobedience is legitimate; and, the strongest being always in the right, the only thing that matters is to act so as to become the strongest."
In times of widespread fear and panic, when the fires of fear are stoked with rhetorical hatred and xenophobic banter, it may just prove to be the catalyst that drives a crowd from a rally to a mob, from peace to violence, and toward that "might makes right" mentality. Then it becomes more than harmless questioning of one’s patriotism, it becomes a dangerous game with potentially devastating consequences.
**Update** One thing that didn't seem to make it when I copied my diary over was that statement that the beginning of the title was that of a book by Barbara Tuchman. A wonderful historian and an insightful book. I want to make sure to credit her for the title. **