Bush wants everyone to just relax; and more to the point, she
wants the media to aid in the process of nerve-calming by restraining
themselves from what she sees as a growing tendency to scare
the public with stories of impending cataclysm.
From repetitive coverage of the "orange alert" announced
by Homeland Security Director Tom Ridge, to the airing of extended
sections of Osama bin Laden's latest anti-love letter, the First
Lady worries that the children might become overanxious. After
all, it's difficult to explain to nine-year olds why their parents
are running around the house, covering doors with plastic and
sealing off windows with duct tape.
As Lady Bush explained to an audience in New York recently,
"it's a bit like crying wolf...you know it hasn't happened
Quite so, though such a statement begs the obvious if impolite
question: namely, who does she think has been feeding information
to the press in the first place? Who said we have to launch
a "preventative war" with Iraq because to wait might
result in "mushroom clouds" over America?
Simply put, were it not for Laura Bush's husband and his henchmen
raising the red flag every time bin Laden farts there would
be no news to exaggerate. 24-hour news cycles are a lot easier
to fill when you're getting faxes every half-hour from the Pentagon
proclaiming "new evidence" of Saddam Hussein's bad
faith, provided by sources you can't name, but that the American
public should nonetheless trust, or so we're told.
Perhaps the First Maven of literacy - who has apparently forgotten
the maxim that "charity begins at home" - should worry
less about the media and a bit more about an Office of Homeland
Security that puts out warnings based on tips from folks who
weren't even given a polygraph for two weeks, and when they
were, failed it. And just how much is this cracker-jack unit
costing us again?
Fear isn't something created by the media, so much as by the
political leaders they cover. It is politicians whose stock
in trade is conjuring up insecurity among the public; after
all, what better way to convince them to support civil liberties
restrictions like those in the Patriot Act; what better way
to convince them to support a war that might kill - according
to UN estimates - a half-million Iraqis? Most Americans are
decent people who don't relish the thought of such bloodshed.
But if told that it's "them or us," even the most
magnanimous soul can be turned into a reactionary automaton
who will countenance mass murder.
Fear is functional. It serves the interests not only of the
media, which can pull larger ratings in the face of crisis,
but also the interests of elected officials who need public
panic to justify their policies. Indeed, without the fear being
generated by this Administration, Laura Bush would be looking
at a guaranteed change of residence in two years, seeing as
how the economy is in the crapper and her hubby's plan to rescue
it can't even get the support of a conservative economist like
Alan Greenspan. Far from criticizing media scare coverage, she
should be welcoming it as the only thing keeping her from those
hot Texas summers on the Crawford Ranch.
Fear always serves the interests of elites. Throughout history
they have sought to identify dangers from which they insist
their subjects must be protected: witches, Jewish financiers,
Papists, freemasons, Indians, immigrants, atheists, communists,
drug dealers, rebellious slaves, the Mafia, the Black Panthers,
jazz, rock and roll and now rap music, the "homosexual
lifestyle," satanic ritual abuse, day care operators who
molest children, and now Muslim terrorists.
And in each case, the generation of fear and insecurity does
at least two things.
First, it enhances the power of elites by convincing the people
to keep them in office. After all, candidates rarely tell the
voters all the positive things they hope to do; rather, they
focus on how they intend to "protect us" from crime,
the "death tax," their opponents who seek to raid
the social security trust fund, the scourge of drugs, or madmen
like Saddam Hussein.
Fear sells, and it gets people elected.
Secondly, fear sows mistrust in the population, which reduces
the people's ability to come together for constructive social
change; it hampers solidarity in other words. If the public
is being encouraged to wonder if their neighbors are commies,
sex offenders, sniper wanna-be's or members of an al-Qaeda sleeper
cell, then what's the likelihood that they'll seek to forge
relationships with others, especially strangers? And what will
the lack of community cohesion mean in terms of the public's
ability to confront serious social problems, from crumbling
schools, to environmental pollution, to inadequate health care?
When whites flee the cities for "nice, safe" places
in the 'burbs, because they've been convinced that their lives
are endangered not from other white folks like their bomb-building,
drunk driving kids, but rather by black and brown folks in the
'hood, what are the chances of whites and blacks getting together
to deal with their often common economic interests?
Historically we have seen this dozens of times. Consider those
labor unions that perpetuated racism and were encouraged to
do so by employers who used people of color to break the strikes
of white workers. By sowing suspicion of the "outsiders,"
elites could divide people with common interests, prevent them
from acting in solidarity, and boost their own position as a
Likewise, slave owners in the South, who convinced poor whites
to fight and perhaps die in a war that, by their own admission,
was about protecting the property interests of the elite. And
how did they do it? By scaring the masses about what would happen
if blacks were free: they would take white jobs, rape white
women, and overturn "our way of life."
Or during the Cold War, during which time we were told that
we had to stop the Soviets from making inroads into "our
backyard" by invading such imminent threats as Grenada.
The perceived threat of communism was used to boost the careers
of political elites and justify massive military spending, which
in turn was good for economic elites.
In short, fear and insecurity increases the power of the state,
encouraging us to trust so-called experts, who we're told have
the specialized knowledge to protect us from the myriad dangers
out there. They encourage us to mistrust our own judgment, suspect
others of wrongdoing, and become less involved in political
When one is afraid, after all, one tends to withdraw, become
overwhelmed, and look for safety in the quickest manner possible,
which in this case means trusting others who promise to make
us safe, even if it means relinquishing certain freedoms and
moving further to the authoritarian right of the political spectrum.
A population is best controlled when it's afraid.
Not only controlled, but diverted. If one is worried about Saddam,
or Quadaffi, or Khomeini, or Noriega, or Breshnev, or Kruschev,
or Castro, then one isn't likely to pay as much attention to
the actions of Enron, or WorldCom or Halliburton or any of a
number of more localized dangers to our well-being. Suddenly,
forty million people without health care or in poverty are off
the front page, and rising unemployment becomes a footnote.
If the public is afraid of becoming another homicide statistic
- and indeed about 15,000 people are murdered annually - then
they won't likely notice the 60,000 or more who die every year
because of workplace illness, disease or accidents that could
have been prevented had corporations not cut corners on workplace
safety standards or environmental protection.
If white parents are afraid of affirmative action and feel threatened
by so-called racial preferences in places like California, they
will go to the polls to ban such policies, while overlooking
the erosion of state support for higher education generally,
and the fact that in the last twenty years California only built
one new four-year campus, while they built more than twenty
Had the ratio been reversed, all college-eligible kids in the
state would have had a good school to attend and affirmative
action would have been largely irrelevant. But rather than take
action on that simple truth, they turned on their neighbors
and fought over the scraps of a pie that none of them owned
to begin with.
With the fear of terrorism and Saddam, the gambit is working.
Every place I travel I see letters in local papers calling on
Americans to "give up some freedoms," for the sake
of security: more camera surveillance, e-mail snooping, infiltration
of organizations and mosques, or closing the borders and deporting
I hear folks on talk radio saying we should go to war, even
if the purpose is to maintain dominance over oil, since "our
way of life" depends on the substance. Ironically, these
admonitions are often followed by claims that the letter-writer
or caller "refuses to live in fear," because doing
so would allow the terrorists to win. This, despite the fact
that fear is exactly the condition under which they live, perpetually
it seems. It is the fuel that fires their votes, consumer purchases,
travel decisions - all of it.
And to help throw more fuel on that fire, we now have a CIA
report that claims the odds of Saddam launching an attack on
the U.S. with weapons of mass destruction are 59% before the
end of March, and that there is only a 6% chance that he will
never use such weapons against us. Of course the media reported
this announcement, despite the fact that it has all the methodological
soundness of a Tarot reading by Miss Clio.
But is the panic generated by such a "revelation"
the fault of George Stephanopolous, who asked Tom Ridge about
it on national TV, or is it the fault of the CIA itself, which
puts out prognostications made up of whole cloth, knowing full
well that much of the public will buy what it's selling? The
answers are self-evident.
At the end of the day, when Laura Bush blames the media for
stoking public anxiety, I would guess that there is a 91.3%
chance that the Lady doth protest too much, and only an 8.7%
chance that she really believes what she's saying. After all,
it is 100% certain that fear is what pays her house note.
Tim Wise is an essayist, antiracism activist and lecturer.
He can be reached at [email protected]
comments are welcome. Visit the Contact
Us page for E-mail or Feedback.
here to return to the home page