Fear and Loathing in America

In short, I was afraid
--The Lovesong of J. Alfred Prufrock,
T.S. Eliot
_____________

The Phony War on Terror (PWOT ©) says more about the U.S. than it does about al-Qaeda. We know that al-Qaeda are scum, but how readily we got mucking around with them!

Why? Because for 50 years America has been weaned on fear. Fear of the Yellow Peril, the Red Menace, the Bomb (Duck and Cover!), liberals, Socialists, intellectuals, anti-gun activists, terrorists and The Other. The national product of America is fear, and gigantic industries owe their success to it, from arms manufacturers to security firms.

We are fearful over our food supply; fearful of being marginalized by fleeting youth and wrinkles. We suffer fear of freedom, fear or flying, fear of nanotechnology, fear of love. We are fearful that we have been too discriminating, fearful that we have not been discriminating enough. Fear we are overinsured or underinsured; overarmed or underarmed; taking too many vitamins, or too little. Just damn fearful.

Ronald Reagan gave us the pitchman's sell on fear, and international terrorism was sold as a Kremlin product, propagating Joe McCarthy's discredited spiel. As a movie star, Reagan delivered unreality selling unreality. He was Baudrillard's dream man.

Rigor was not part of the program. A latent religiosity which teaches sheepiness and obedience to the Father is. The Far Right's agenda is to keep the flock safe from infidels. Oddly, that is the same agenda touted by their sworn nemesis, al-Qaeda.

The Far Right has never been much troubled by reality, but here is some from the morbidity tables: American men have a far greater chance of contracting AIDS through casual unprotected sex than being the victim of al-Qaeda terrorism. Obesity, drinking and smoking will get you sooner than terrorists. So will driving a car. Golfers have greater chance of being struck by lightening on the course than of being a victim of terrorism.

A new President is about to assume office, and what is his philosophy on terrorism? I like only one of President Bush's wars. Ramp it up in Afghanistan even though the Taliban has no agenda to project their leadership beyong Afghanistan and the boarder areas of Pakistan.

Ranger sees this as a Paki problem, not an American policy issue. Obama was not elected to wage a war to protect Pakistan from the Taliban.

The Afghan venture was initially launched to defeat the Taliban, thereby neutralizing al-Qaeda safe havens. This has been accomplished, so why not bring the troops home? Afghanistan and Iraq are not the unilateral concerns of the U.S. If they present a danger, then this should be addressed in a world forum. This would add legitimacy to the effort and spread the cost.

What does the average Afghani and Iraqi hope for and desire? Probably the same thing the Reagan era Communists and Sandinistas wanted, and the Vietcong and North Vietnamese in the 1st and 2nd Indochina Wars: respect, warm homes, water, decent food, freedom of religion and freedom from foreign domination. Their fears are real, and we are what they fear.

What do Americans desire? Health care access, jobs, retirements, vacations, Stuff and more Stuff, and safety and freedom from fear. Probably FDR's Four Freedoms covers it well: Freedom of speech and expression, freedom of religion, freedom from want and freedom from fear.

While our standard of living dwarfs that of our nemeses and our might is awesome, it cannot save us from fear, because fear is irrational. We place the source of our fear outside of us, as some external threat, while the real threat to America's survival and well-being is our own government.

Terrorists cannot destroy our way of life, but the mismanagement of our economy can. The U.S. government's actions and inactions are pushing into dangerous ground. Without the gross federal government's overreaction to terrorism, that threat would have been manageable.

Ranger has not met one taxpayer lately that is optimistic about the country's future or his own personal welfare. The actions and non-actions of the George Bush administration are the greatest threats this nation has witnessed from within in recent memory.

Terrorism is a bump in the road, while the economy has careened off the road and appears to be out of anybody's control. Terrorism will never be "defeated," though it can be confronted and dealt with. Corruption and a failed economy can, however, destroy a nation.

Our rogue leadership is more to be feared than the terrorist threat.

--Lisa and Jim

Chicken Little

President Bush utilizes the Chicken Little approach to leadership by trying to convince the American public that the sky is falling.

America needs to be steadied by leadership rather than being shaken and stirred. Unfortunately, Bush's credentials for shaking and stirring are unquestioned.

The Iraq imbroglio is being repackaged as a World War and the keynote event of the new century. The entire threat from Islamic terrorists has been unrealistically portrayed as being more virulent than evidence warrants. Others more erudite than myself support this position, including writer Ted Galen Carpenter (This is not Another World War).

Carpenter's recent article recognizes that terrorism poses a frightening and tragic, but manageable, threat.

Why is Chicken Little leadership acceptable to the American public? Today my health magazine had an article on "The foods we are afraid of". Articles abound on inanimate objects that kill -- everything from toys to air fresheners seem to pose a threat to our well-beingn and very existence.

Have we become so skittish of our world that we see it as a malevolent and antagonistic place? We deserve better than a timid and fearful existence. And make no mistake that our sustained attack in Iraq can only be propped up by such fear--the "We need to get 'em over there before they come over here" mentality.

A country like Israel may have to launch an all-out attack against her aggressors, as her back is against the wall; our backs are not against the wall. Moreover, it's not our job to homogenize the world under the umbrella of democracy. Christians may be charged with evangelizing and spreading the Good Word, but that is not the task of a democracy. Demagogues, yes; democratically-elected officials, no.

--Lisa and Jim