Fear Factor
I found this, digging around the Shot in the Dark historical archives:
POINT: WINSTON CHURCHILL: "Even though large tracts of Europe and many old and famous States have fallen or may fall into the grip of the Gestapo and all the odious apparatus of Nazi rule, we shall not flag or fail. We shall go on to the end, we shall fight in France, we shall fight on the seas and oceans, we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, we shall defend our Island, whatever the cost may be, we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender, and even if, which I do not for a moment believe, this Island or a large part of it were subjugated and starving, then our Empire beyond the seas, armed and guarded by the British Fleet, would carry on the struggle, until, in God's good time, the New World, with all its power and might, steps forth to the rescue and the liberation of the old."
COUNTERPOINT: JOSHUA MICAH GLIBMAN: "It'd be great if Churchill could fight this war without having to resort to all this fearmongering. Like Hitler could really invade England. Doyy! And look at that dumb mustache; you think a guy like that could run a war?
Why does Churchill Hate England?
I did a bit of digging. Here was 1941:
POINT: PRESIDENT FRANKLIN ROOSEVELT: "Yesterday, December 7, 1941—a date which will live in infamy—the United States of American was suddenly and deliberately attacked by naval and air forces of the Empire of Japan.
The United States was at peace with that nation, and, at the solicitation of Japan, was still in conversation with its government and its emperor looking toward the maintenance of peace in the Pacific. Indeed, one hour after Japanese air squadrons had commenced bombing in Oahu, the Japanese ambassador to the United States and his colleague delivered to the secretary of state a formal reply to a recent American message. While this reply stated that it seemed useless to continue the existing diplomatic negotiations, it contained no threat or hint of war or armed attack."
COUNTERPOINT: SARAH JANE VON LUMPEN: "Leave aside that the Japanese offered Roosevelt a chance to end this war, starting an hour after the attack that served as Roosevelt's excuse to start the war (why does Roosevelt hate diplomacy?). Forget, for a moment, that building all those planes and tanks and aircraft carriers does nothing about bringing Emperor Hirohito to justice (he's still running free in Japan!).
My question: Why the blatant appeal to fear?
I flipped ahead to 1987:
PRESIDENT REAGAN: "General Secretary Gorbachev, if you seek peace, if you seek prosperity for the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, if you seek liberalization: Come here to this gate! Mr. Gorbachev, open this gate! Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!
I understand the fear of war and the pain of division that afflict this continent-- and I pledge to you my country's efforts to help overcome these burdens. To be sure, we in the West must resist Soviet expansion.
COUNTERPOINT: LUCAS HAYDEN: "Again with the Soviet Boogeyman! Boo! Be afraid of the Big Bad Ivan!
Criminy - why does Reagan always have to appeal to fear? The Russians had good reason to put up that wall - to defend them from the Nazis!
Ridiculous?
Not compared to the left's current conceit - that calling awareness to the gathering demographic and social storm of Islamofascist radicalism is "fearmongering", or, for that matter, that campaigning using it as a backdrop is an appeal to the constituents' fear.
Beeeej, who is -= sure enough, a liberal New York lawyer, and an old friend of mine - wrote in the comment section about my post on the GOP's "The Stakes" ad...:
The ad and the sentiment behind it are despicable. We need people who are serious about making us safe without relying on fear to hold onto their power.
Well, with all due respect to Beeeej, I have to disagree.
The disagreement, I think, has a lot to do with the way people process threats - and how that translates to their personal politics.
Convenient example: Back during Minnesota's concealed carry debate, one of the media and DFL's convenient tropes on the subject was "carrying a gun is giving in to fear of crime!".
Of course to reform proponents it was about no such thing; it was a prudent means of confronting crime. Given that it was a measure that requires a more-than-fair amount of preparation, investment and training - things not normally associated with "blind fear" - it's seem to be more a matter of transference than actual "fear" on the part of the reformers.
So, too, with the war on terror. To part of America, acknowleding the existance of a war, and a demographic and social time bomb of which the war is currently a symptom, is a matter of prudent, realistic appreciation of a situation. To the other part, it's either a punch line or an imagined symptom of how much smarter they are than the rest of us.
Observing that a fact is a fact isn't a matter of fear; it's a matter of being realistic.
Wanting the rest of the electorate to be realistic isn't fear. It's prudent. We're in this - in theory - together.
Posted by Mitch at
October 23, 2006 06:55 AM
| TrackBack
The more Mitch resorts to the Nazi imagery, the more you know he's sweating over Election Day.
Hey Mitch, and of the DFLers running for city council remind you of Dr. Mengele?
Posted by: angryclown at October 23, 2006 08:12 AMUm - where was the "Nazi imagery?"
You've been toking from Marsha's bong, haven't you?
Posted by: mitch at October 23, 2006 08:19 AMAC shows that the left can't even grasp the analagous nature of those situations even when you lay it out for them in simple form.
Speaking of fearmongering in ads, the dem's ads on health care are full of it.
Posted by: Nordeaster at October 23, 2006 08:37 AMMitch queried: "Um - where was the `Nazi imagery?'"
Moments after writing a pretend dialogue:
"COUNTERPOINT: JOSHUA MICAH GLIBMAN: "It'd be great if Churchill could fight this war without having to resort to all this fearmongering. Like Hitler could really invade England."
Google can be such a help in situations like this one, Mitch. I looked it up: turns out *Hitler* was a Nazi. True!
Posted by: angryclown at October 23, 2006 09:02 AMMentioning Nazi Germany, with no furter detail, is "Nazi Imagery?"
I suppose saying "New York, New York" is "Liza Minelli Imagery", too?
Posted by: mitch at October 23, 2006 09:22 AMBeeej shouldn't worry. When you have lost two wars and are so obviously endangering the country, 'fearmongering' is just another confession of failure.
Posted by: RickDFL at October 23, 2006 12:01 PMBy the way, if you right-wing kooks are so convinced that average voters continue to wet their pants at the sight of Osama five years after 9/11, you could always, you know, kill him.
Heckuva job, Rummy!
Posted by: angryclown at October 23, 2006 12:10 PM"When you have lost two wars and are so obviously endangering the country, 'fearmongering' is just another confession of failure."
Three premises stated without evidence, and rejected without comment.
Posted by: mitch at October 23, 2006 12:19 PMMitch queried: "I suppose saying "New York, New York" is "Liza Minelli Imagery", too?"
Um, no, that would be Frank Sinatra imagery.
Strange how, for Mitch, the Rorshach image of "New York, New York" comes up all "Liza!"
Wait, maybe this is a blog for *Log Cabin* Republicans.
Not that there's anything wrong with that.
Posted by: angryclown at October 23, 2006 12:33 PMEr, yeah.
Liza Minelli did it, too, musical genius.
I refer you to Sheila. She's in New York, by the way:
http://www.sheilaomalley.com/archives/007121.html
You're one of those "Don't know much about New York, but act like your zip code makes you SH" New Yorkers, aren't you?
Posted by: mitch at October 23, 2006 12:41 PM"Three premises stated without evidence, and rejected without comment."
Exactly. Anyone who at this point wants 'evidence' that we are losing in Iraq and Afghanistan is simply not serious and not to be trusted with our security.
The country knows this, that is why the war is so overwhelmingly unpopular. The country does not want Democrats to engage is some pointless debate with Republicans who refuse to admit the obvious. They want us to intervene and take control of the wheel.
Posted by: RickDFL at October 23, 2006 12:56 PMYour usually reliable comedy sense fails you, Mitch. Frank and Liza recorded the two most famous versions of NYNY, as we both know. But when Angryclown thinks of the song, he thinks Frank. You, by contrast, think Liza. The premise of the joke is that makes you just a little fruity.
Betcha like Barbra's "New York State of Mind" better than Billy's too.
Posted by: angryclown at October 23, 2006 01:03 PMRickDFl at 12:01 PM:
"When you have lost two wars and are so obviously endangering the country, 'fearmongering' is just another confession of failure."
Later from RickDFL at 12:56 PM:
"we are losing in Iraq and Afghanistan"
Later in the 12:56 comment RickDFl says:
"The country does not want Democrats to engage is some pointless debate with Republicans who refuse to admit the obvious. They want us to intervene and take control of the wheel."
The chosen party of Michael Moore, Kos, and Duncan Black will lead us to victory in Afghanistan, Iraq, and the GWOT. Okay then, but if this is the Democrat's new talking point you really should get them to them to take out the quotes around global war on terror. Talking about Afghanistan and Iraq as wars which can be won would be a good start as well.
Posted by: Terry at October 23, 2006 02:02 PM"But when Angryclown thinks of the song, he thinks Frank. You, by contrast, think Liza. The premise of the joke is that makes you just a little fruity."
I think of a chick, you think of a dude - but that makes ME fruity?
I shoulda been a lawyer.
Posted by: mitch at October 23, 2006 05:11 PMWell played, old chap. Nice recovery!
Posted by: angryclown at October 23, 2006 05:21 PMMitch, Clown, get a room. You're starting to sound like an old married couple.
Posted by: Kermit at October 23, 2006 10:58 PMMore of an Oscar and Felix relationship, Kerm.
"On November 13, Mitchell Berg was asked to remove himself from his place of residence. That request came from his wife."
Posted by: angryclown at October 24, 2006 07:32 AM