Misc. Ramblings

I see that former presidential candidate Howard Dean has become the head of the US Democratic Party. His election to the post seems to imply he will not run for the presidency the next time around.

Why? Because none of his possible competitors would have allowed him to hold the party chair if he said he would run. Hence, I assume either he isn't going to run or he will, but in doing so will have to cut all ties to the party when he does and perhaps run as an independent.

Which path he chooses isn't as important to me as how he, and all Democrats, will deal with the Fear Problem(r).

There are as many reasons as voters to explain why President Bush got re-elected. But I think the most important was the Republican employment of fear as a motivator. It may be somewhat cynical to say we vote against someone because we fear them more than we vote for another. But it sure looks like that's how many people are voting.

For example, one of the early uses of fear was in the late 1980s William "Willie" Horton ad. In one of many brilliantly cynical moves, the Republicans referred to Mr Horton as Willie, rather than by his full given name. Why? Because the name William R. Horton sounded like a white bank manager from Kennebunkport, Maine while Willie Horton gave the impression of a low-life from Mississippi. Indeed, Mr. Horton calls himself William and all court records and news reports referred to him as William. That is, until the Republican ad ran.

In addition, another later ad ("Revolving Door"), intoned that Dukakis "vetoed mandatory sentences for drug dealers he vetoed the death penalty. His revolving door prison policy gave weekend furloughs to first degree murderers not eligible for parole. While out, many committed other crimes like kidnapping and rape, and many are still at large. Now Michael Dukakis says he wants to do for America what he's done for Massachusetts. America can't afford that risk." Notice the fear code words: mandatory sentences, drug dealers, death penalty, murderers, crime, kidnapping, rape, and finally - "America can't afford that risk."

Another example. The Republicans wanted to paint President Clinton as being "pro-gay" so, by inferral, they could say he was "anti-family." The perfect opportunity arose in the case of gays in the military. In a superb move by the Republicans, they created a Catch-22 situation by charging, on one hand, gays in the military would be subject to blackmail because of their sexual orientation so they shouldn't be allowed in. On the other hand, the Republicans were against letting gays openly state they were so. That is, if gay soldiers wanted to free themselves from being blackmailed by openly stating they were gay, they would be booted out of the armed services, or not allowed in to begin with. Into this mix, the Republicans stirred in a whispering campaign about straight soldiers having to fear they would be gang raped by roving gangs of gay sailors. As an aside, calls to get rid of gays in the military have recently fallen silent, perhaps because there are severe manpower shortages due to President Bush's foreign adventures. But I digress.

From there, it was a natural progression to focus on fear of gay marriage. Again, if you are for gay marriage, or even civil unions, you are somehow against straight families. In 1996, Republican candidate for President Alan Keys, one of the most virulent anti-gays around, said "If we accept the homosexual agenda, which seeks recognition for homosexual marriages, we will be destroying the integrity of the marriage-based family." Running again in 2000, he went further saying granting of civil unions means "you've legitimized pedophilia." By inferral, Keys seems to be saying, somehow, allowing gays to marry will lead to homosexuals preying on young boys. And, you know, this twisted logic worked. People in 11 states recently voted to ban marriage of gay couples. All told, 39 of the 50 states now ban gay marriage. Why? Because they fear homosexuals somehow will make their own marriages less secure? Because they fear married gays will kidnap young boys and force them into gay slave servitude. I dunno, but I guess so. How else do you explain it other than through the use of irrational fear?

And so we come to the most far reaching example. Fear of external threats. Before there was terrorism, there was the Republican push to create a missile "umbrella" because we feared we would be attacked. By whom I'm not sure since the umbrella would be for the continental US and the only country with nukes that could reach the US would be Russia. On the other hand, Hawai'i and Alaska can be reached from North Korea. But, of course, there's no "umbrella" for either of these two states. But, again, I digress.

Republicans have used the fear of external threats for decades. The most famous was during the 1950s and the "Red Menace" (see also Senator Joseph McCarthy) scare. People were scared into digging holes in the back yard to create fallout shelters. Lists of communist sympathizers were created (or at least pieces of paper purported to be lists were waved about, along with a lot of arm waving). Everyone was suspect, including your neighbor, your priest, your teacher, or anyone because they could be...a communist.

Bring that forward to today and everyone, including your neighbor, your priest, or your teacher could be...a terrorist. People are building "safe" rooms into their houses to protect against bio-chem attacks (get out the duct tape and plastic sheeting Aunt Minnie, the terrorists are coming!). Congress and the President have shredded the Constitution because, they say, it is necessary and prudent during war to protect us against the terrorists. Never mind this is a war without end, or definition, or even criteria as to what victory would look like. What's important is that you are at risk! There is danger everywhere! The Constitution is but a mere impediment to what needs to be done! Grave times require grave men who are not afraid to take charge!

Under these conditions, the new Chair of the Democratic Committee finds himself. What will he do? I don't know, but what happens over the next couple of years will be critical to the survival of the US as a free, democratic republic.

Monday is the President's Day US national holiday. Hence, there won't be a post.

Have a Great Weekend, Everyone - Aloha!