The eternal story of scaring people into embracing one's views was seen aasgain while the government struggled to pass a healthcare bill that at worst is a meager improvement over what exists now, and at best would mark a landmark moment in social reform.
It never ceases to amaze me to see how purportedly intelligent people, people with the capacity—albeit apparently seldom used—to get the facts and reach their own conclusions, choose instead the easier path of following the strident cries of those whose agenda is NOT to reach a viable solution to the problem, but to disrupt governance at any cost; to place roadblocks in the path of the leadership with the SOLE PURPOSE of making it fail. Is this desperate measure to regain control not obvious to the rest of the thinking world, I wonder? Is this tactic not a clear demonstration of the quality of the opposition, which places selfish pursuits over the good of the people, the good the country? Can politicians not put their selfish interests behind and get to the business of doing the job they were hired to do, which is to safeguard the well-being of ALL Americans?
How many times have the masses been scared senseless into agreeing to something that goes against all their natural inclinations and principles? Not too long ago, Mr. President Bush rammed down our throats the so-called Patriot Act, which basically took away a great majority of our civil liberties—pride & joy of this nation—under the guise of protecting us against the threat of terrorism.
The Act increased the ability of law enforcement agencies to search telephone, e-mail communications, medical, financial, and other records. It expanded the Secretary of the Treasury’s authority to regulate financial transactions, particularly those involving foreign individuals and entities; and broadened the discretion of law enforcement and immigration authorities in detaining and deporting immigrants suspected of terrorism-related acts. The act also expanded the definition of terrorism to include domestic terrorism, thus enlarging the number of activities to which the USA PATRIOT Act’s expanded law enforcement powers could be applied. Opponents of the law criticized its authorization of indefinite detentions of immigrants; searches through which law enforcement officers search a home or business without the owner’s or the occupant’s permission or knowledge; the expanded use of National Security Letters, which allowed the FBI to search telephone, e-mail, and financial records without a court order; and the expanded access of law enforcement agencies to business records, including library and financial records. Yet the legislation passed with the support of BOTH Republicans and Democrats
.
Fear is a powerful thing.
Appeal to Fear: this is the opposition's weapon of choice these days. Wikipedia defines the term as, “a fallacy in which a person attempts to create support for his or her idea by using deception and propaganda in attempts to increase fear and prejudice toward a competitor. The appeal to fear is common in marketing and politics.” I find it ludicrous that there is an actual definition of the term; in other words, it's no mystery that the maneuver is amply recognized, and yet there are some (many) who still fall prey to this tactic.
History is full of examples of this phenomenon: governments and organizations feeding this pill to the unsuspecting populace, thus gaining swift allegiance to their causes—usually causes that under normal circumstances would not see the light of day if people were a little more skeptical and did a bit of homework before jumping on the bandwagon.
In 1943, Churchill declared, "The power of the Executive to cast a man into prison without formulating any charge known to the law, and particularly to deny him the judgment of his peers, is in the highest degree odious and is the foundation of all totalitarian government whether Nazi or Communist."
The Military Commissions Act of 2006, rammed through Congress just before the 2006 midterm elections, allows for the indefinite imprisonment of anyone who donates money to a charity that turns up on a list of "terrorist" organizations, or who speaks out against the government's policies. The law calls for secret trials for citizens and noncitizens alike.[Rule by fear or rule by law? February 04, 2008. By Lewis Seiler and Dan Hamburg (SFGate.com)]
In the case at hand, the fear-mongering that Republicans and so-called “Tea Party” militants are perpetrating to gain support against a piece of legislation for reasons that I will try to explore later on, is on par with these and other examples of the “rule by fear.” In fact, examples of this tactic within other realms of society—not just governmental—are many.
Political campaigns are full of these fear tactics. Democrat Johnson used the Daisy ad2 to instill fear of nuclear holocaust among voters that might have voted for Barry Goldwater, who had suggested the possibility of using nuclear power in Vietnam. Dictators have risen to power, often with the support of those who they intend to subjugate, by creating fear in them. Fear of communism sent Pinochet to power in Chile. Fear of Jewish domination sent Hitler into power in Germany.
I'm not trying to draw a strict parallel between those historical events—which are monumental in their significance in history—and the mere passing of a piece of legislation; but it's clear to see that the effects of fear are evidently significant in every situation.
A question I ask myself over and over is, why are healthcare reform opponents so virulently berating this bill? Maybe the better question would be, “who are the opponents to this bill? Well, let's see... people who want “less government,” people who don't want to share their “hard-earned cash” with the likes of the poor, the dispossessed, the elderly, the children, people who are too wrapped up in their own micro-cosmos to see beyond their limited circles? Perhaps. Actually, the main force behind all this opposition is: you guessed it! THE OPPOSITION! Republicans cannot get over having lost the Presidential election, and have done—and will do—”anything in their power” (as quoted by many Republican congressmen) to block anything that the Democrats will try to accomplish. Today, healthcare reform; tomorrow, whatever.
In the end, it comes down to politicking vs. serving the constituency. I only hope that one day we will wake up and see things for what they are, make our own decisions based on FACTS, stop listening to the pundits and those who scream the loudest, and quit our attitude of complacency. We need to cover our ears and open our eyes.
New York Times Frank Rich said it very well: “the politics of resentment are impervious to facts.”