United Liberty
Policies of Fear
Fri, 01/16/2009 - 2:58pm | posted by Alina Stefanescu Coryell
Economist Ludwig von Mises, a man who witnessed the rise of totalitarian systems of fascism and communism, noted that totalitarian governments thrive in the soil of etatism, or “the trend toward government control of business”. On Mises’ view, etatism went hand-in-hand with economic nationalism and the glorification of war. There is no better example than Nazi Germany, the home of national socialism. Before Hitler could mobilize resources and support for his Lebensraum-oriented war machine, he first nationalized businesses, turning them from entrepreneurial market ventures to servants of the state. But what does that have to do with us?
Most Americans, whether on the left or right of the political spectrum, feel a natural repugnance when confronted with the thought of government controlling businesses. In other words, we want government to regulate business but we don’t want government to run it— we did learn, after all, about the horrors of fascism and communism over the past 50 years. Or something like that.
Or maybe not. Because things are different now. When faced with the fear of recession and “economic downturn’, giving our government free reign over businesses seems wise. After all, Obama is probably smarter than Bush— he’ll figure out a good way to spend that money and keep those businesses in line.
Watching Fox News, we know that the war on terror is a fight for our very existence. And who in their right mind would question sending more troops, more money, more weapons across the world when threatened with annihilation? After all, we trust our government to keep us safe.
In the 19th century, American colonists burned midwives, female artists, and “hysterical women” at the stake as witches because the gentlemen in power warned of their danger to society. In the 20th century, American courts routinely sentence consumers of illegal drugs to jail time for our safety; we have been convinced by scientists and jurists that doped-up hippies are more dangerous than doped-up housewives, the difference being in a piece of paper called a presciption. We want to be safe, but we know, as our government, the media, and experts of all stripes remind us, that danger lurks everywhere. Since most of us are not experts, we are unable to see all these hidden threats and dangers. But we know our government is omniscient and omnipresent— we see the mark of government in our homes, our towns, our textbooks, our medical diagnoses, almost every apsect of our lives— so we trust the guys in Washington to keep us safe.
Writing for the magazine Christian Century in 1945, after the end of World War II, author and educator Mortimer Smith expressed concern about the extent to which human beings will go along with anything when roused by fear:
“Through the cacaphonous chorus of the postwar planners runs one harmonious theme: the individual must surrender more and more of his rights to the state which will in return guarantee him what is euphemistically called security.”
The word “security”, like the word “safety”, is charged with meaning. But this meaning depends on where you stand. Or how much you can stand. Or your portfolio investment ratio. Or your overall level of anxiety. Or your religious upbringing. Or how many houses you own. For example, I know a few folks who just won’t feel secure or safe until the world wide web is banished. I’ve also had the misfortune of meeting a few who wouldn’t feel safe if their new neighbors turn out to be black or gay or Unitarian. My grandfather never felt safe around anyone who could speak Russian. If there is a political solution that would make all these exemplary people feel safe, it would be some form of totalitariansm.
Fear, in itself, is part of the human condition; it speaks to the tenuousness and frailty of our reasoning abilities. As such, it is hardly a sound foundation for public policy in a democratic republic. (One might argue, of course, that fear is an excellent foundation for public policy in a feudal monarchy or dictatorship.) The war on terror should not be the strategic equivalent of a man battling ghosts with a pillow. Rather, Obama’s call for more troops in Afghanistan should be preceded by a clear strategic reassessment of what might constitute victory. Our concerns about the economic downturn should not lead us to believe that one man, Barack Obama, has more knowledge and wisdom than all the tacit knowledge implicit in the workings of a market economy. We shouldn’t allow fear to trump common sense in the belief that one stimulus package, namely, Obama’s, might be better than another’s, namely, President George Bush’s. The search for practical, reasonable, and successful political solutions to the problems of terrorism and economic insecurity works best when government avoids promulgating the ideology of fear and, instead, focuses on doing a very small number of things very well.
Isn’t it Ironic that FDR - who is famous for the phrase “The only thing we have to fear is fear itself” - was himself a fearmonger. Too bad the citizenry listened to FDR rather than Smedley Butler. Things might be different today.
Excellent posting. People are rendered unable to think rationally because their “fight or flight” reflexes are constantly alerted. For example, since 9/11 over 100 times as many Americans have died in car accidents as in 9/11, well over 2000 times as many from circulatory issues alone, and yet Americans continue to obsess over terrorism when an American is far more likely to die of a bee sting than a terrorist attack.
Terror only works when you’re terrified and the government WANTS that to control everyone. Installing a police state won’t make anyone feel safer only turn us into some nightmare nation of suspicion, hatred, and allow the elite to control everyone’s meaningless robotic existance. Since Bush tried to block ANY investigation of the 911 “attack” and then lied to everyone and told us to invade Iraq it doesn’t take a brain surgeon to figure out what’s going on here, it’s just they have everyone so scared no-one will talk about it-baloney! The endless “war on terror” is a fraud, the lies to invade Iraq for oil and Afganistan for the Trans Afgan Pipeline deal to supply India’s booming economy with the Caspian gas and oil bypassing Iran and Russia. This is just business for the big oil bankers that run things here but trying to step up and assume the British Empire baloney is not what America was supposed to be about.
Tornadoes, car accidents, lightning, germs, etc. kill far more Americans than people thousands of miles away who we are bombing the heck out of because they just happen to live over 70% of the earth’s remaining oil reserves.
Back to Oprah!
It is not in our nature to be rational and logical. It is easier to use emotions as the basis for making decisions. This mess we are in today is a product of human nature.
The mess we are in today is a product of bad policies, uneducated media, and the human propensity to deify fear. I only partly agree with you, Chris, because sometimes I fear ascribing the current political situation to mere “human nature” is too fatalistic— it suggests there can be no other way. Soviet communism appealed to the weakest parts of human nature, but that’s no reason to believe it couldn’t be overthrown.
Its funny because as I was reading that post I got to the part about your grandmother being afraid of Russians, and then it dawned on me to check the name of the author. Yup. Romanian! I’m Romanian too so its easy to understand why other, older Romanians would inherently be afraid of Russians.
Anyway, back to the post. Fear is unfortunately the cause of very very very very very many problems in this world. Its is only second to arrogance and selfishness, but I suppose it can be argued that these are caused by a form of fear as well. Anyhow, fear is never good, not for us as reasonable, imaginative and intelligent people. Still to be reasonable, imaginative and intelligent requires some work and that’s difficult. So people choose to be not think, not see and not understand and ultimately be scared into whatever others want to scare us into. In the end that’s difficult too, just in a different way.
As I’ve seen it, all things have a way of balancing themselves out. Things will happen as they will. All we can do really is to try our best and not be afraid.
Anyway, nice post!
PS: Also, cool little slider thing at the bottom of the text box for the comment.
Hey sorry, just saw your last comment and wanted to add one more thing. Its a bit off topic.
I think of religion as being not only the result of natural (human) fear but it goes a step further in creating the extra fear necessary for its survival. I did a lot of thinking about religion and god and all things theistic. Then I thought about philosophy. And I realized that religion has changed considerably over our existence as has god and our understanding of him. All led in very large part by fear. Back when Rome was around polytheism was the norm and the most powerful culture in the world believed in many gods. This was in part due to fear of death, but more to do with our limited understanding of the world around us. As we developed the sciences and our understanding grew, we no longer needed quite so many gods, just one would do. But even he was not needed to explain the world. Instead religion changed god’s roll as a purveyor of fear (wrath of god, sins) and the savior (heaven, rapture) of all those things you were afraid of to begin with. Whether god exists or not is not the point here, but rather how his (her?) role was changed by religion.
Its a very simple formula unfortunately. Create a fear then offer a solution. Create of fear of death and offer the solution of afterlife. Create a terrorist fear and offer the solution of war and invasion. Create an economic fear and offer the solution of wealth transfer.
Its been done before it and will be done again. You shouldn’t say that calling it “human nature” is fatalistic. You have to honestly recognize that fear is part of who we are. Calling it fatalistic is marginalizing it or worse still ignoring it. Better still is to acknowledge it and work to change it. It is my human nature to be hurt when someone breaks my heart, but that doesn’t mean I’ll let it affect me (too much). See what I mean?
Anyway, sorry about being off topic.
One last thing. Listen to Obama. I voted for him, because he was the lesser of two evils. But listen to him. For all this charm, he too is fearmongering.
The fear
http://www.plenglish.com/article.asp?ID={78F8CCB8-287D-456B-9AC6-0EE7DCC6ED17})&language=EN
And the solution.
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2009/01/16/congres…
Sucks!