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!
