Why fear based politics and social guidance works (enemy, Taliban, regular)

[TnHilltopper]

Just a few random thoughts.


Ever wonder why fear based politics are so effective? Ever notice that even in the face of empirical evidence to the contrary, the fear card wins out?

Something dawned on me while reading some psychological material from PTSD research. (post traumatic stress disorder) It was discussing why in most PTSD cases that veterans (in this case) have great difficulty in forgetting traumatic events. They will often live out scenarios or moments in the mind over and over, and sometimes even something like not getting a pair of needed socks will remain with them into their late life.

Humans will time stamp a memory either by static or dynamic means. A person sees a flower or an unusual tree, they will remember it and usually it will slowly fade with time as it is a static memory that is more fixed to a single moment in time. On the other hand, if you are walking in the woods and you hear the leaves rustle and a wild pig were to charge you, then this will become a dynamic memory, as each time you hear leaves rustle, you will update and recall a previous situational memory that invoked stress. This is something for human survival. Depending upon the level of stress for a given event will often determine how often, frequent, or vivid that recalled memory is.

In the case of fear based politics and social guidance, events like Sept. 11th which were traumatic for nearly all Americans but more so by those closest to the event. Each time invocations of such events are associated with a current situation, the memory is updated. Of course depending upon the level of the stress caused by the first memory will usually determine how long this will invoke fear. Even today, the mere mention that terrorist may attack or there is some evidence stating that they will is often enough to get people to take notice, and in some cases, remain compliant with those who are responsible for our protection from the stresses of these threats.

In the case of our media, "Barry Glassner, a professor of sociology at the University of Southern California, argues that there are three techniques that together make up 'fear mongering:' repetition, making the irregular seem regular, and misdirection."

In the first instance, we used the same word--repetition. If South Africa's apartheid, or the Soviet nuclear threat, had only been mentioned once, no one would have paid any attention to them.

In the second instance, he says, "making the irregular seem regular," and I say "context." It is really the same thing. The example of context I've used is the video we saw of the Taliban supposedly gassing a puppy dog to death in their testing of chemical weapons. Assuming the tape was real, our media never mentioned the tens of thousands of puppy dogs the US gassed to death in ITS chemical weapons program. In this instance, it was "making the regular seem irregular" but context is how it's done.

In the third instance, he says, "misdirection." The way that our media do that, in order to avoid obviously looking like advocates themselves, is to choose "guest experts" who will say what the media want said, as well as by choosing the debate topic. For instance, rather than having people on before the war who questioned the war, and asking them if the war was necessary, they chose people who supported the war, and asked them if we could win it.

While certainly no one doubts the dangers from terrorism, but there is rarely a rational or objective assessment of the actual dangers, but instead, only the worst possible scenario imaginable is ever presented as the possibility. Rarely will we see a comparative threat assessment that actual CIA, FBI, or NSA, etc… will use but instead will be offered the politicized version that is meant to invoke images and feelings that would best support the conclusions desired. Until we learn to better understand fear, more people will fear the possibility of being attacked by radicals in caves from half a world away instead of the heart disease that we are a million times more likely to die from.

[Wendell Phillips]

"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed – and thus clamorous to be led to safety – by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary."

~ H.L. Mencken

[Wendell Phillips]

"Our country is now geared to an arms economy bred in an artificually induced psychosis of war hysteria and an incessant propaganda of fear."
~General Douglas MacArthur

"It is part of the general pattern of misguided policy that our country is now geared to an arms economy which was bred in an artificially induced psychosis of war hysteria and nurtured upon an incessant propaganda of fear."
~General Douglas MacArthur

"Our government has kept us in a perpetual state of fear - kept us in a continuous stampede of patriotic fervor - with the cry of grave national emergency."
~General Douglas MacArthur

"Always there has been some terrible evil at home or some monstrous foreign power that was going to gobble us up if we did not blindly rally behind it."
~General Douglas MacArthur

"Our country is now geared to an arms economy which was bred in...war hysteria and nurtured upon an incessant propaganda of fear."
~General Douglas MacArthur

[harborlady]

Originally Posted by TnHilltopper

While certainly no one doubts the dangers from terrorism, there is rarely a rational or objective assessment of the actual dangers, but instead, only the worst possible scenario imaginable is ever presented as the possibility. Rarely will we see a comparative threat assessment that actual CIA, FBI, or NSA, etc… will use but instead will be offered the politicized version that is meant to invoke images and feelings that would best support the conclusions desired. Until we learn to better understand fear, more people will fear the possibility of being attacked by radicals in caves from half a world away instead of the heart disease that they are a million times more likely to die from.

Or instead of our other intimate enemy, the leadership of this country abusing the very constitution it was sworn to uphold.

[FightinPhils]

"Beware the leader who beats the drums of war in order to whip the citizenry into patriotic fervor, for patriotism is a double-edged sword. It emboldens the blood and narrows the mind. And when the drums of war have reached fever pitch and the blood boils with hate and the mind has closed, the leader will have no need to seize the rights of the citizenry. Rather, the citizenry, infused with fear and blinded by patriotism, will offer up all of their rights unto the leader and gladly so. How do I know? For this is what I have done. And I am Caesar."
-- Attributed to Julius Caesar

[Wendell Phillips]

Hobbes maintained that men readily trade their liberty for security. Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan (1660). Indeed, one need only look to the Patriot Act of 2001 and the Military Commissions Act of 2006 to see that this is true.

[harborlady]

"those who sacrafice liberty for security deserve neither."
Benjamin Franklin

[ViewFromThePeak]

"Why of course the people don't want war. Why should some poor slob on
a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best he can get out of
it is to come back to his farm in one piece? Naturally the common people
don't want war neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in
Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the
country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to
drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist
dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no
voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders.
That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked,
and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the
country to danger. It works the same in any country."

- Hermann Georing, Commander-in-chief of the Third Reich's Luftwaffe

[Wendell Phillips]

Originally Posted by harborlady

"those who sacrafice liberty for security deserve neither."
Benjamin Franklin

The original of the above quote ["Those who would give up essential Liberty to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty or Safety."] was used as a motto on the title page of An Historical Review of the Constitution and Government of Pennsylvania (1759), which was attributed to Benjamin Franklin in the edition of 1812; however in a letter to David Hume of September 27, 1760 regarding the publication of the first edition, Franklin denied that he wrote it. One might credit it a good motto even without the attribution to Franklin. Contrariwise, considering the Patriot Act of 2001 and the Military Commissions Act of 2006, betting odds are that Hobbes was right in the long run.

[harborlady]

wendell- it's what my public education elementary school books taught me. I heard washington also did not cut down a cherry tree, nor confess about it.

Would be nice if lies weren't promulgated in the first place, then revisions wouldn't be neccessary.
(I thank you for the correction)