Zbigniew Brzezinski, national security adviser to President Carter, wrote in the Washington Post that the Bush administration’s use of the term “war on terror” has created a culture of fear in the United States. And it was intentional. “Fear obscures reason, intensifies emotions and makes it easier for demagogic politicians to mobilize the public on behalf of the policies they want to pursue,” he wrote.
Posted by Patrice Hein
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/22
- CapnAmerica on Health care reform would save state money
- Monkeyhawk on Open thread 11/22
- CapnAmerica on Open thread 11/22
- Phantom on Health care reform would save state money
- Monkeyhawk on Minority status in Senate; majority approval at home
- Phantom on Health care reform would save state money
- CapnAmerica on Open thread 11/22
- Phantom on Health care reform would save state money
- writerdog on Minority status in Senate; majority approval at home
36 Comments
Ah, what a cute photo! Makes you want to say, “Devil, get thee behind me”…..oh, he’s already there. Hey, Dickie, how do you do that thing without the strings showing?
The issue of nationalism is an example of this. The philosophers, wanting to secure the nation against its external enemies as well as its internal decadence, sloth, pleasure, and consumption, encourage a strong patriotic fervor among the honor-loving gentlemen who wield the reins of power. That strong nationalistic spirit consists in the belief that their nation and its values are the best in the world, and that all other cultures and their values are inferior in comparison.Irving Kristol, the father of neo-conservatism and a Strauss disciple, denounced nationalism in a 1973 essay; but in another essay written in 1983, he declared that the foreign policy of neo-conservatism must reflect its nationalist proclivities. A decade on, in a 1993 essay, he claimed that “religion, nationalism, and economic growth are the pillars of neoconservatism.” (See “The Coming ‘Conservative Century’”, in Neoconservatism: the autobiography of an idea, p. 365.)
On this perverse view of the world, if America fails to achieve her “national destiny”, and is mired in perpetual war, then all is well. Man’s humanity, defined in terms of struggle to the death, is rescued from extinction. But men like Heidegger, Schmitt, Kojève, and Strauss expect the worst. They expect that the universal spread of the spirit of commerce would soften manners and emasculate man. To my mind, this fascistic glorification of death and violence springs from a profound inability to celebrate life, joy, and the sheer thrill of existence.To be clear, Strauss was not as hostile to democracy as he was to liberalism. This is because he recognizes that the vulgar masses have numbers on their side, and the sheer power of numbers cannot be completely ignored. Whatever can be done to bring the masses along is legitimate. If you can use democracy to turn the masses against their own liberty, this is a great triumph. It is the sort of tactic that neo-conservatives use consistently, and in some cases very successfully
Leo Strauss who is the mentor of many in the current administration, held that the unwashed masses (you) are naturally aggressive and in order to control the masses from turning on the Wise (the ruling class). You must be given a common enemy to focus your natural aggression.
So along comes the “war on Terrorism” a generic, undefined, enemy that can be used to control the masses with a common enemy and a common focus. No I am not saying that Al-Qaeda and Bin Laden are a creation of the administration. But they certainly did come along at a opportune moment to generate a common drive that was needed by the Straussians.
Nah, I think it’s just the opposite.
Were my country the sissies the libbies WANT us to be – then I miht be afraid.
But as long as we have the balls to stand up to the terrorists – there is no reason to fear.
We have had NO domestic attacks since the War on Terror started.
’nuff said.
The Republican party has a long sorrowful history of running on fear because it is the only trump card they hold. They cannot run on the issues and get elected so they have to use fear. It used to be fear of Communist. Although the possibilty of Communist “taking over the world” was ZERO, it worked well for the GOP in the 1960s and 70s. Now of course it is the fear of terrorist even though your chances of being killed by a terrorist are about 1 in a million. Your chances of being killed by a criminal, psycho or drunk driver are much higher but the GOP cannot run on those issues can they? And of course the GOP has won the south by using an under the radar racist theme disguised as “states rights” by using fear of the Negro male to win white votes from uneducated white people. And now they are trying the same thing using fear of the Mexicans. But here is the good thing- America is becoming more educated and educated people don’t vote for Republicans en masse like trailer park people do. Not only that but America is becoming browner and less white which is another good sign for the eventual demise of the GOP. There simply will not be enough white males to elect them anymore. And more and more people are fearing the loss of their health insurance, their jobs and their homes than they are fearing being attacked by the Arabs.
If that’s true, Kev, what do you make of the current Liberal spiel that keeps stating we are in MORE danger now because of the War on Terror?
Seems to me – that’s manipulation by fear.
Isn’t it?
Wow Kev,
One week Republicans are the Evangelist type…
Next week we are the “get the tax break because we are rich” type…
Now we are trailer park and uneducated people…
Okay Kev, if you can answer this question, it might put on the track.
I have neighbors who are Doctors, Lawyers, cooks, mechanics, teachers, housewives,house husbands, engineers, salespersons, checkout clerks, etc. They are black, white, Indian, Native American, Hispanic, Chinese, Korean and other.
Which one are Republicans Kev?
Both parties have used the ‘fear’ tactic in the past.
If you vote X you will lose your social security. . .
If you vote X the terrorists will win. . .
The truth is that things really don’t change, no matter who is in office.
“And more and more people are fearing the loss of their health insurance, their jobs and their homes than they are fearing being attacked by the Arabs.”
Ah yes, the ultra-liberal ‘Talking Points of Fear’. Be afraid! Worry! Vote for the Socialist Party!
Classic example of far right wing denial.
“Nah, I think it’s just the opposite.
Were my country the sissies the libbies WANT us to be – then I miht be afraid.
But as long as we have the balls to stand up to the terrorists – there is no reason to fear.
We have had NO domestic attacks since the War on Terror started.
’nuff said.”
Proudman – good point. A Changing of the Guard doesn’t make a big difference most of the time.
Please point out where (exactly) I was wrong, Kev.
So along comes the “war on Terrorism” a generic, undefined, enemyPosted by: writerdog | March 31, 2007 at 05:58 AM
I think the anti-war left’s mistake is limiting the war on terror to the likes of Al Qaeda and Bin Laden.They are but a limb on the tree of the problem and threat of militant Islam.
Mr Kia,
I agree, totally.
Also how ironic it is former President Carter doing the calling out.He did nothing while Iran pooped all over our country for 444 days.If he had any kind of sack or creditability as a world leader we possibly wouldn’t be in this situation.
carter don’t have any room to talk
I found this very refreshing. Maybe there’s hope for a few left-wingers after all.
“I’m a liberal Democrat (pro-gay marriage, pro-choice, pro-progressive taxation, pro-equal rights, pro-environmental regulation, pro-public schools) who supported and supports the war in Iraq. As I tell my liberal friends”
“Did I miss the part where it was progressive not to fight medieval religious fascists?”
http://www.victorypac.org/about.php
I have neighbors who are Doctors, Lawyers, cooks, mechanics, teachers, housewives,house husbands, engineers, salespersons, checkout clerks, etc. They are black, white, Indian, Native American, Hispanic, Chinese, Korean and other.
Which one are Republicans Kev?
Usually they are easily spotted by their stupid “W 04″ stickers on their cars. Only Republicans are too dumb to figure out that 2004 came before 2007. Or maybe they don’t yet know it is 2007. Most of them seem stuck in 1957.
“Also how ironic it is former President Carter doing the calling out.He did nothing while Iran pooped all over our country for 444 days.”
What is it you wanted him to do? Rush in and attack Iran and get all the hostages killed? Sure they were held for 444 days but that is better than being dead for many more days isn’t it? That’s the thing with cons- they always want to go to war over everything without trying anything else.
“Did I miss the part where it was progressive not to fight medieval religious fascists?”
You mean Israel?
ALL religions have their fascists; especially the Abrahamists.
What did Regan do when we had our biggest troop losses due to a terrorist bombing, in Syria, I believe?
It was Lebanon, during the US support of the Israeli occupation.
That’s right. Regan taught them a lesson on that one.
Somewhere along that time line, I think it was Reagan that bombed Qaddafi’s house in Libya.
Out of the Israeli occupation of Lebanon grew the Party of God { Hezbollah } which ran the Israelis out of Lebanon and had it not been for Nixon sending in the US air-force, Israel would no longer exist and gasoline would still be under a buck { 1970-73 }.
They wanted Iraq out of the way, Bush gave them that, now they want Iran. But the Arab world intends to make Iran their last stand. Pakistan { with nukes } was at that Arab Summit last week and agreed to stand with the Arabs.
Things can get real ugly and Israel isn’t worth it.
Hey Ed,
I’m assuming you like to keep “your” Arab states under the control of a dictator style of rule?
Are you against Democracy or is it you prefer Muslim style of Government?
I’m liberal to the core BUT I don’t care about gay marriage or abortion. And even though I think it’s real, the discussion on global warming is wasting our time. The single biggest problem is Iraq and we are dead wrong to be there. We are not fighting terrorists there, only putting ourselves (troops)in harms way. Bush and his gang have been wrong about every single issue in Iraq. And how do we get out? The only way to win any sort of victory is replace Saddam with another dictator, only one who agrees with our point of veiw. Then murder, torture and violence will be OK. It’s happened before and it will happen again.
Did anyone know that death in airline accidents is 1 in 1.6 million (passengers flown)?
What does the News usually report?
The 1.599 million passengers that landed safely or the one that dies?
How many troops are Iraq? Do they report about the troops daily or even weekly on those who are alive or do they report the deaths?
Something to think about and argue about. :)
There are and will be radical Islam as long as Islamic people have children, there are and will be radical Christians as long as Christians have children, there will always be people that will bring terror on sociality as long as there are people in the world. There is a fight to be fought but we must do a better job of picking these fights and of fighting these fights so as not to be confused with the enemy. Afghanistan was the right place to fight; Iraq was not, (at least not before the invasion) not under the lies we were told to fight, everyday I read someone come up with new and great reasons on these blogs, but these are not foresight but hindsight to twist what has and is happening in Iraq into a good thing. Bush turned his back from OBL and for anyone to think he is busy fighting us in Iraq but would not in Afghanistan is wrong, for anyone to think he is busy fighting in Iraq instead of planning attack for us here is wrong. Bush has neither foresight nor hindsight to lead this fight. He had not the foresight to see how as blogger Republican has said -”Because the goal was to topple a dictator and give Iraq back to the people of Iraq.” That the effect would as blogger Econ101 has said-”The Shiites and the Sunis are killing each other daily”(or maybe he could careless and that means he doesn’t have the moral standing either to lead this fight). I do not believe turning our back on Iraq is the right thing but turning away from Bush (Cheney) is a step in the right direction.—–
Now that the dems have embolden the enemy we will someday again be attacked and 99% of them will be Aaaggain Saudis. I wonder if Bush will attack Venezuela to get rid of that evil dictator Hugo Chavez.
Posted by: undecider | March 29, 2007 at 02:24 AM
Right, why write about the five hundred Iraqis blown up this week, write about the ones that didn’t get blown up this week. They might not be around next week!
APRIL FOOL’S, WINGNUTS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Don’t try to pretend you didn’t miss us. Else, why would so many of you slither over to The Other Place—some to chat, some to troll? Right-Wing solidarity? Feh. Evidently, y’all aren’t any better at not breaking ranks than your liberal adversaries.
Well, the liberals you love to hate are BACK. Slap CF2K some skin, people! And in honor of the big reunion, CF2K (same old CF + 2K + Typekey—let’s see Repubican try to steal CF’s name NOW) wants to serenade all of you Wingnuts with a little ditty he composed just for you this very morning.
The tune is one you all should know, though it may be one you’d rather forget: “The Brady Bunch.” Play a verse of it in your heads, and then join in. It’ll be fine—just pretend this is church. Get ready for a tune, and some snappy asides, that CF2K calls…
THE WINGNUT BUNCH
“Here’s the story of a lovely lady,”
(That’s Mom, or GSheridan, resplendent in her patented Carol Brady mullet and Xanaxed, welded-on, Laura Bush smile)
“who was bringing up three very lovely girls,”
(Girl #1. Marsha also = GSheridan. Can you say, “Mirror, mirror, on the wall, who’s the fairest Marsha of all?” Or “Marsha, Marsha Marsha!” It’s a safe bet GSheridan does. Frequently)
(Girl #2. Jan = ksgrm. I grant this breaks the pecking order, but ksgrm is TOTALLY Jan. She’s second best, First Runner-Up, attendant to the Queen Bee, and is a bit, well, loopy. Can’t say whether there’s a wig involved, though, so maybe she’s not TOTALLY Jan. CF2K’s bad)
(Girl #3. Cindy = Fleetwood. Self-explanatory)
“All of them had hair of gold, like their mother,”
(Well duh—they’re all WHITE REPUBLICANS)
“The youngest one in curls.”
(Fleetwood—sans his two front teeth or any semblance of adorableness)
“Here’s the story, of a man named Wingnut,”
(Dad = Repubican / JM / Eier, sporting all the repressed gayness and badly permed hair of his namegiver)
“Who was busy with three boys of his own,”
(Boy #1. Greg = GMC70—same first initial, not to mention the fact that GMC70 thinks that he looks most fetching in the Johnny Bravo jumpsuit made famous by Greg)
(Boy #2. Peter = Nathan AND Outlander—both included for the nicest reason possible. Nice guys, after all)
(Boy #3. Bobby = KSGolfnut—included for some reason other than the nicest one possible. Smug guy, after all. Uber-smug, really.)
“They were four men, living all together,”
(Must not take obvious homoerotic cheap shot, must not take obvious homoerotic cheap shot…)
“Yet they were all alone.”
“Till the one day when the lady met this fellow,”
(Given Mike Brady’s real-life gender confusion and the questions that have arisen regarding GSheridan’s identity, it is less than clear who figures as the “lady” and who figures as the “fellow.” No matter: a Love Connection ensued. I will leave you to imagine the details. Doing so is more than I can bear)
“And they knew it was much more than a hunch,
That this group would somehow form a family,”
(And here, to echo Ben Huie upthread, CF2K thought It Took A Village. Ain’t that just like a Liberal)
“That’s the way they all became the Wingnut Bunch.The Wingnut Bunch, the Wingnut Bunch,That’s the way they all became the Wingnut Bunch.”
Hold up. There’s a bit of housekeeping / due diligence yet to be done. This “Bunch” isn’t complete yet. There’s:
1. Tiger = Hank Price: always talkin’ ’bout his “bitches.”
2. Fluffy = SOB: markedly less than manly. Screeching and feline, in fact, as demonstrated by his sniveling troll posts on The Other Place.
3. Alice = Joe Williams: half the time he’s totally on the ball; the other half he’s trying to drag Sam the Butcher to the altar.
So, Wingnuts and Wingnut fellow travelers, I hope you like your new names. Get my drift, fellow Lefties?
Daddy’s home, Wingnuts. Time to get real. Your unctuous, fatuous, disingenuous “civility” is as over as George Bush’s “Presidency.” So over, in fact, that, as Carrie Bradshaw said on “Sex in the City,” “we need a new word for ‘over.’”
Be seein’ ya. Got church in the morning. It’s Palm Sunday, after all.
A culture of fear? Really?
BTW, whatever happened to those ORANGE ALERTS! ORANGE ALERTS!
I’ve still got five tons of duct tape and plastic sheeting that I hoarded from last time.
Damn.
“Now that the dems have embolden the enemy we will someday again be attacked and 99% of them will be Aaaggain Saudis. I wonder if Bush will attack Venezuela to get rid of that evil dictator Hugo Chavez.”
Dood.
You run out of medication this weekend?
CF2K? PRICELSS!!!!
Very odd post CF2K in a thread entitled “‘War on terror’ has created a culture of fear.”
The “war on terror” : a sick joke.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/01/washington/01gitmo.html?_r=1&th&emc=th&oref=slogin
“On October 23 [2002], the UN Disarmament Committee adopted two crucial resolutions. The first called for stronger measures to prevent the militarization of space and thereby to ‘avert a grave danger for international peace and security.’ The second reaffirmed the 1925 Geneva Protocol ‘prohibiting the use of poisonous gases and bacteriological methods of warfare.’ Both passed unanimously with two abstentions: the US and Israel. US abstention amounts to a veto: typically, a double veto, banning the events from reporting and history. In the mainstream media, there was not mention of these failed attempt by the rest of the world to prevent serious threats to survival.”
Noam Chomsky, “Hegemony or Survival: America’s Quest for Global Dominance,” (2003) page 121