The politics of fear

[MadHound]

Well, as they say, we're well into that silly season, an off year election. As with any other election, each side is trying to scare its adherents into voting for them. The 'Pugs are using the fear of a black, socialist, Muslim, Kenyan, anti-colonialist to scare their side to the polls. The Dems are using the fear of the 'Pugs, in their latest reincarnation as whack a doodle Tea Partiers, return to power in order to scare their side to the polls.

And therein lies the problem.

Fear is an easy and cheap way of getting out the vote. You don't have to work very hard, relatively speaking, to get people to the polls. All you really have to do is fill the airwaves and newsprint with ever louder screeching about fear, Fear, FEAR.

This ever increasing drumbeat of fear allows the candidate to be free to do. . .nothing, especially if you're an incumbent. You don't have to pass meaningful legislation, in fact you can vote against the best interests and wishes of your constituents. You don't have to spend political capital, you don't have to do much at all.

Fear has been always been an element of any political campaign, but the use of fear has really ratcheted up in the past three decades. Meanwhile, the lack of meaningful legislation, or worse, of legislation that goes contrary to the interests of your base, has increased. Why not skip that public option, when all you have to do is scream "FEAR" six months later. Why not push through welfare "reform" when all you have to do is scream "FEAR" during the next election season.

This does a huge disservice to our country and to us. Any politician, especially an incumbent, can do virtually anything and yet when it comes to the next election, they run on FEAR, not their record, and win.

Don't let FEAR guide your vote, don't let politicians off that easily. Instead, force them to run on their record, what they have accomplished, not how loudly they can fearmonger.

[AtomicKitten]

1. I fear the GOP back in power. That's motivation enough. nt

[MadHound]

2. Then you allow the Democrats to be unaccountable,

And worse, give them a pass on their record.

Fear is never a good place to be making decisions from. Am I saying that you should vote for the 'Pugs, no. What I am saying is that you consider the candidate's record, not fear, as the first rubric for voting for them.

[The Magistrate]

3. Hear Hear, Ma'am!

Nothing wrong with voting against a gaggle of dangerous freaks....

[MadHound]

4. People vote against a gaggle of dangerous freaks,

And thus give a pass to those who push and pass legislation that is harmful to we the people. The only way this country effectively works is by holding our leaders responsible for their actions.

[The Magistrate]

5. Primaries Are The Time To Engage Our Own, Sir

This is another season.

The fact is that the harm which will be done by a tea-bagging Republican Congress to the people and the country must be prevented.

That is what we all should be concentrating on at this time.

[MadHound]

7. If all you concentrate on is what the bastards on the other side are doing,

You will fail to see the damage that the bastards on your side are doing.

We've allowed FEAR far too much voice in our political process, and all it has done is divided the people of this country and allowed politicians to be unaccountable for their actions.

[The Magistrate]

10. No, Sir: The Bastards On The Other Side Are Worse By Far

Nothing can be gained by pretending otherwise, save perhaps giving them the power to do all the harm they intend.

It is hardly my position that the present Democratic administration and Congressional leadership are optimum, mind you. We could, doubtless, compare notes on failures and even frauds without much argument.

But none of that makes it a good course for the people and the country to put our government in the hands of racist reactionaries who are in many cases actively delusional.

[MadHound]

13. But if you keep succumbing to fear,

If you keep handing the reins to politicians who don't have any accountability, who don't have to run on their record, how do you expect any sort of positive change in this country?

I'm not pressing for people to "put our government in the hands of racist reactionaries" but rather to find a new political paradigm that holds all politicians to account.

Otherwise, if we simply keep voting out of fear, we'll continue to go down the toilet as a country.

[The Magistrate]

16. There Is No 'New Paradigm', Sir: There Is Only In Office Or Out Of Office

Unfortunately, this year we have an exceptionally ripe crop of critters who must be kept out of office, absolutely.

[MadHound]

18. So thus we get a slightly less ripe crop of critters in office

And marginally slowed down our approach to the abyss.

Unless people start voting out of accountability rather than fear, we're not going to change direction, just the speed.

[The Magistrate]

21. Even Just Slowing The Speed Is Worth Something, Sir

The only 'accountability' offered for moving at a slower speed to perdition is putting in office someone who promises to put the pedal to the floor and run red lights getting there, and will follow through on the promise....

[blondeatlast]

28. I'd welcome anyone who doesn't understand the need to stanch the infection

to move to Arizona, where toxic Teabaggery has been successful for some time, but only recently adopted a name.

Thank you, sir.

[MadHound]

30. Nope, false dichotomy.

There are other options out there, but heaven forbid that we mention them here.

Meanwhile, fast or slow, we're still heading towards that abyss. You might be able to play out the clock, depending on your age, but there millions and millions out there who don't have that option and we have an obligation to hand over a better country than what we have crafted in the past thirty years.

[The Magistrate]

33. No, Sir: The Actual Situation

Chanting the names of 'logical fallacies' is pretty much a confession one has nothing real to press....

[MadHound]

35. Not chanting logical fallacies, I'm demanding accountability from our politicians

What, you think that they shouldn't be held accountable?

Meanwhile, with every cry of FEAR, our country moves closer to that abyss, at either a slightly faster or slower pace (though even that is becoming hard to discern).

[MineralMan]

39. There are no candidates not of the two major parties,

who can win any of the elections in November. You're counseling people to vote against Democrats. Just because you do not name the third parties does not mean you are not opposed to the Democratic candidates.

This is not the time for your posturing. This is not the time to push people away from Democrats so the Republicans can win. You do the nation a disservice with your defeatism. No, thank you. You may have your third party candidates, and have a merry time with them. This is Democratic Underground, not Defeat Democrats Underground. Perhaps theres a forum that supports third parties. This is not it.

I am offended at your noxious attempt to defeat Democrats in the election that takes place in just six weeks.

[MadHound]

41. "You do the nation a disservice by your defeatism" Really now, WTF?

Do you recognize just how Orwellian that sounds?

Hmm, speaking of becoming that which you hate, have you taken a look in a mirror lately?

[AtomicKitten]

9. hear, hear back atcha

:thumbsup:

[HughMoran]

24. It's so simple

You pick your candidates in the primary.

In the General Election you vote for Democrats.

[The Magistrate]

25. Exactly, Sir

[NanceGreggs]

12. You assume that voting to keep Republicans out of office ...

... automatically means not holding Democrats accountable.

A Democrat in office can be pressured by constituents to do what they want done. A Democrat who loses election or re-election cannot be pressured into doing anything - because a GOPer is now in their seat.

I am always amazed at those who don't accept the fact that keeping the GOP out is as valid a reason for voting Dems in as any other. It needn't be the only reason - but IMHO, it's a damned good one right off the bat.

[MadHound]

14. Really? How's that worked out for you, and the rest of us?

Oh, yeah, the party has moved ever further to the right, and issues like the public option, much less single payer, are no longer viable.

I've beaten my head against a brick wall, as have many millions, by trying to pressure politicians in office, and you know what I've found. Politicians listen to only two things, large amounts of money or large amounts of votes. If you don't hold that stick over them, then they simply won't listen. Now most of us don't control large sums of money, so we have only our votes to fall back on. It is past time we started using them wisely.

[NanceGreggs]

19. And a non-vote for a Dem ...

... is as good as a vote for a Republican. That's the reality of it.

Single payer was rendered not viable due to the lack of enough Democratic votes to get it passed, given the opposition from the GOP. Ergo, more GOPers in office is not the answer.

[MadHound]

20. So despite virtually every other professional in this country being held accountable

We're supposed to give politicians on "our side" a pass?

Sorry, but only insures that we get worse and worse politicians, and less and less change that we so desperately need.

I'm not saying that 'Pugs in office are desirable, far from it. But I'm tired unto death of politicians of all stripes doing what they wish and getting a pass on it because of FEAR.

Oh, and single payer wasn't even brought up. The public option was, it had overwhelming public support, but the Dems didn't get it passed because they lacked the spine to force a real, live filibuster fight. Don't go trying to change history here.

[HughMoran]

26. There's no nuance in voting! It's either R or D (or throw your vote away)

It's quite simple:

[MadHound]

31. Ah yes, black and white thinking

Didn't we use to criticize 'Pugs for that? But when it comes to your ox being gored, hmm.

[HughMoran]

36. Never mind

It's abundantly clear that you think of new and better ways to criticize Democrats without ever criticizing Republicans or promoting Democrats. It's not worth the effort.

[scheming daemons]

44. An election is one instance where the either/or black/white paradigm is true. Only get two choices.

[MadHound]

48. Actually that's not true,

You can vote third party, like say for Ross Perot. You can choose to not vote at all. It isn't a black and white thing at all.

[NanceGreggs]

27. You're right ...

... I meant the public option.

I understand saying people shouldn't vote out of fear. But I ain't buying the it's the same kind of fear the GOP used, despite the popularity of equating the two around here these days.

The GOP used fear of terrorism after 9-11; that was their tactic, convincing the masses that Al Qaeda would gun them down at the local strip mall if they didn't vote for the "better on national security" (!) Republicans.

For better or worse, we have a two-party system - so it's a Dem or a Repub. And people choose one or the other accordingly.

Are there those who "fear" the consequences of GOP control? Absolutely, especially after the BushCo Regime. And it's a valid concern.

You're dissatisfied with the Dem Party? That's fine. But I don't think you'll get anything you want out of the Republicans. And pretending they're not the alternative is foolish at best.

Pressure can always be brought to bear on an elected Democrat - pressure applied to a Democrat who is no longer in office, despite all the accountability you might demand, is not in a position to accomplish anything.

[MadHound]

29. But it is still FEAR, and it is being used by both parties

And the trouble is, the use of fear simply does not allow for any accountability for a politician. They can get up on the stump and scream FEAR, stampede their constituents to the polls, yet do nothing for them after they get the win.

Let's take education. FEAR was screamed long and loud during the '08 election, yet now we see that public education is under even greater assault by this administration than by the last administration.

Rather than using fear to motivate voters, we need for them to run on their actual records. If we don't, pretty soon it won't matter because this country will have gone off the cliff.

[NanceGreggs]

40. I appreciate your concerns ...

... and understand them - something I have often been accused of being incapable of.

I don't pretend to know every campaign strategy by every Dem - but I'm really not seeing a lot of "fear" being tossed around in order to garner votes.

I think we are ad idem on a lot of things. But we are at odds when discussing how positive change can most efficiently be effected.

The truth is that if one doesn't vote for Dems, no one really notices the voters' absence. That's the truth. No one tracks down the non-voters and says, "We've noticed you didn't vote - can we ask why?"

Any elected official is a politician - and politicians, by and large, want to STAY in office, or seek higher office in future. It is THAT desire on their part that provides the voters with a cudgel - prove yourself HERE, and I will support your desire to be THERE.

As I've said, we're currently a two-party system. And I am a realist (another term which has fallen into disfavour). As such, I must conduct myself, and my voting, according to the confines of the world I am in, not the better world as I might envision it.

One might choose, out of principle or honest dissatisfaction, not to vote for a Democrat for any given office. But once that Dem is yet another also-ran, their ability to effect positive change is gone forever.

My goal is to elect Democrats, whenever and wherever possible. Telling them, after they've lost their elected office or have failed to attain it in the first place, what I am dissatisfied with, and why, is a moot point.

And telling a Republican, once elected, what I am expecting is an exercise in futility.

Idealism is a concept to be admired and respected - but ignoring the facts on-the-ground is not only non-productive, but counter-productive.

I might admire the passion of those who desire massive and immediate change - but until they can convey a workable and immediate alternative to bring that change about, I am duty-bound to work within the system as it stands, rather than tilt at the windmills in the land of what might-have-been.

[MadHound]

42. You don't see the fear card being played by either side? They're both playing it.

Listen to talk radio, look around here, listen to the speeches given by candidates, and their supporters, throughout this country. There is little of standing on records, but rather fear of the dreaded other being pumped, being hyped.

Don't get me wrong, there is good reason to fear Republicans, but quite frankly, in many ways, it is this very fear of the other that is giving our politicians a pass. Why bother running on one's record, just run on fear.

This has made politicians increasingly unresponsive, has allowed our political discourse to head sharply right, and left we the people increasingly out of the equation.

We have, as a class, more in common with each other in the working and middle class, than we do with the elite of either party. Yet we are, both through accident and design, deliberately torn apart through fear. We're becoming fatally blinded by it.

It isn't going to be about immediate change, you know, I know, virtually everybody knows that nothing in this country changes immediately. However that is why it is all that much more imperative that we find some way of holding our politicians truly accountable, and to overcome this fear that pervades our politics and our society.

Oh, one other thing, you're not duty bound to work within "the system". You are duty bound to work within the law, and more importantly, the Constitution. That's a bit more room to operate with.

[NanceGreggs]

47. I hear you.

But what I don't hear is the viable alternative.

And I am, for better or worse, bound to operate within the system we have in place.

We can all 'stand on our principles' when we are in the voting booth. But if our 'principles' put the GOP in power - out of spite, out of a desire to 'send a message' to our party - the outcome is the same. More Republicans, less Democrats.

This Party is not perfect - but acknowledging the fact that there are, in the end game, two to choose from, I will choose accordingly.

I would add that although "the Party" has been, of late, presented as some monolithic presence outside of We The People, it is in fact We The People who are the Party.

We are only as good at effecting change as a group as we are willing to be as individuals.

To look at the Party as something outside yourself, it is easy to lay blame and decry its shortcomings, its failures, its inability to please one's desires, one's goals.

But when you realize that the Party is YOU - as small a cog in a massive wheel as you may see yourself to be - you realize that responsibility for its successes, as well as its failures, come down to the individuals who are willing to accept responsibility rather than walk away from it.

I have enjoyed our discussion tonight immensely. You have been courteous in presenting your viewpoint - and I hope you appreciate my efforts in doing likewise.

I've no doubt that we want the same things, wish to achieve the same goals. We differ not on where we want to be, but how to get there. That leaves a lot of open road to travel - and if we can openly discuss our common destination along the way, we're already halfway there. Maybe more.

[Individualist]

6. I had my fill of "be afraid, be very afraid" during the chimperor's administration.

I ignore that crap from the right as well as from DLC.

[MadHound]

8. Good for you,

You're one of the few.

[damntexdem]

11. Yep, they keep pulling the parlor tricks of fear.

But it may be that the electorate is starting to tire of their little show and wondering away from the parlor. ;-)

[NJmaverick]

15. One only has to have been alive and aware during the 8 years of Bush in the White House

to see what you mislabel as "fear" is a very real and very genuine concern that only a fool would ignore or dismiss.

[MadHound]

17. I'm not saying ignore it,

What I am saying is to give the candidates actual record a higher priority in your consideration of whom to vote for that all the fearmongering being put out by politicians and parties.

What, you don't think that politicians should be held accountable?

[NJmaverick]

23. I think voters need to hold themselves accountable as well

voters need to ensure they are not in anyway enabling the GOP to return to power. If they do, they have to accept part of the responsibility for the destruction they cause.

[Name removed]

34. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[NJmaverick]

37. When you mis-characterize all the Dems incredible accomplishments

You doing what the GOP likes to see, by needlessly hurting the Dems. I suggest you listen to what this brilliant Progressive woman has to say

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EXu-CB1XbO4

IF Rachael is impressed by the Dem's accomplishments, how on earth do you justify your extreme claims of destruction?

[SemiCharmedQuark]

22. I thought we learned this lesson in Bush v. Gore?

Guess not.

[MadHound]

32. What lesson is that?

I'm not advocating for voting third party, but we certainly need to come up with some way of holding our politicians accountable for their actions rather than just reacting every couple of years with FEAR.

[scheming daemons]

45. We HAVE a way... it is called "Primary Season"

[MadHound]

49. Primary season is, in many ways, a joke.

Beating an incumbent in a primary race is next to impossible. Hence all the hoo-ha over Christine O'Donnell. Primary's are rigged to favor incumbents and you know it.

[MineralMan]

38. Here's what I do. I talk to candidates, find out what they're about,

study their campaign literature, then walk my precinct, telling people all the positive things about the Democratic candidates they can vote for. I don't ever stress negatives...only positives. It's just that all the positives are on the Democratic side. You seem not to recognize that. If you're all about the negatives of both parties, you'll convince nobody. You'll just turn more people off and they'll stay home.

You're talking defeatism here. Why are you doing that? If I can't support the Democratic candidate on his or her positions, I don't campaign for that candidate. So far, I've not found one I couldn't support, at least on some of the issues. I've never in my life found a Republican I could support.

Who and what do you support? It's pretty unclear. You don't appear to like Democrats much. Who do you support?

I think that's a fair question on a discussion forum called Democratic Underground. Will you answer?

[MadHound]

43. Running the Inquisition tonight, eh there MM?

"Will you answer?" My, my.

OK, look sport, you want a straight answer to that one? I started working for the Dems back in '72 with the local McGovern campaign, a campaign that, I might add, failed to fully fund McGovern's campaign from the jump. You see, Ed Muskie was supposed to get the nod, but he went on that crying jag and self destructed and McGovern got it instead. The party really never forgave him. I was eleven, welcome to the world of Democratic politics.

I worked my way up through the local and state system, went to a convention, was a regional manager for Carter's doomed '80 run. Did other progressive political work, everything ranging from Humane Society to anti-war to anti-nuke, etc.

Worked for Mondale, worked for Dukakis, but both were pretty doomed from the start. The big money was flowing to Reagan/Bush, and frankly neither of them really helped themselves. It seems as though the fighting spirit of the Dems left them somewhere in the early '80's

Was not fond of Clinton, lived in SW Mo when he was governor and heard a lot about what he in Arkansas, especially in areas like education. I swear, if he hadn't gotten that impeachment farce run at him, we probably would have had something similar to NCLB ravaging our school system four years before Bush hit office. But I did due diligence by him, worked the body politic, more out of reflex than enthusiasm. But remember, Clinton probably wouldn't have gotten into office without Perot running. Perot was fun, and he was right about one thing, NAFTA. Sadly Clinton signed that into law, along with a lot of other legislation that has had long term disastrous effects.

By '00 the political reality of our current society was pretty apparent to me, the party was leaving me, and millions like me behind in their move to the right and corporate. Yeah, I certainly did debate with myself about whether to vote for Gore or not, but in the end I voted for Gore. He did a piss poor job of handling the recount, especially since Palast handed him the Florida Votescam on a silver platter, and Gore just sat on it. But I didn't work for Gore nor donate to him.

I did continue being involved in local politics though, especially in the anti-war movement. In fact that's where I'm still spending my political energy. I voted for Kerry and Obama, reluctantly both times, and have given up on DC politics, and Democratic politics. Corporate corruption is rife throughout the system, and the Dems have lost their spine somewhere.

Do you want the answer to your final little Inquisition query? Yes, I will vote for my local and state Dems, but frankly I'm expecting very little from them. Robin Carnahan has already expressed a desire to extend all the disastrous Bush tax cuts, and frankly I don't know if I can hold with that if she follows through.

I have gone from being a proud Democrat to a reluctant political participant, largely because of the Democratic party's own actions. Thirty years ago they decided that winning was better than doing what was right, and to win they needed to swing to the right. The trouble is this only encouraged the RW fringe, who has now succeeded to the point where John Birch insanity is now considered the norm in one party, and anything left of Ike is considered laughable, by the president, in the other party!

So tell me, since I've answered your question fairly and squarely, in this age when corporate money means more than human votes, how are we the people supposed to get the attention of our so called leaders? How are we supposed to get them to fight for us when they won't listen? How are we supposed to hold them accountable? Because our current system isn't working and due to the many impending crises we have, we don't have the luxury of time anymore.

[G_j]

46. amazed

after this time my rec didn't register. A testament to the groveling cowardly worms we have become!
(only slightly tongue in cheek)