From the NY Times:
Liberals frequently use the phrase "politics of fear" when conservatives want to implement policies to fight terrorism, to ban gay marriage or to protect us from violent criminals. However, they never use that term for their own policies.
As she sought to spark a comeback in the Democratic nominating contest, Mrs. Clinton warned voters not to “take a leap of faith or have any guesswork” when they cast ballots Tuesday.I am the last person who is going to defend Hillary Clinton, but Obama's response is interesting.
The Obama campaign accused her of employing “the politics of fear.”
Liberals frequently use the phrase "politics of fear" when conservatives want to implement policies to fight terrorism, to ban gay marriage or to protect us from violent criminals. However, they never use that term for their own policies.
Don't liberals employ the "the politics of fear" when they try to convince us that the Earth is in danger from man made global warming? Or when they argue that practical safety measures will be the first step toward removing our civil liberties?
Both sides employ the politics of fear. It makes sense to some degree. Government's primary role is to keep us safe. Of course, it becomes little more than pandering when politicians overstate their case, but demagoguery has been a part of politics at least since the time of the ancient Greeks and Romans. Aristotle tried to classify the fallacies of orators and politicians over 2,300 years ago.
But to dismiss fears is another form of fallacy. There is nothing logical or rational about ignoring those things which most concern voters or society as a whole.
We are going to hear a lot about the "politics of fear" from now until November. If so, great. If Hillary's comments were the "politics of fear," I hope and trust that McCain will try to scare the heck out of us. Obama scares the heck out of me (although Hillary does not exactly give me the warm fuzzies either).
5 comments:
I concur on your point of "politics of fear." However, it is four or more years of the same hell we're in now that scares me most.
Don't liberals employ the "the politics of fear" when they
...tell us that the (R)s will kill Social Security?
Hell? Can you define that? And can you distinguish it from, for example, the four prior years. And please don't just tell me about Iraq. Explain how, as a result of the current administration, your own world or the world of your family is worse than it was during the prior administration? Partisans like us too often talk in sweeping generalizations.
Even with you taking away the obvious one of the Iraq war, there is the failing economy (encompassing everything from the falling dollar to the deficit ballooning out of control), the untenable position his foreign policies have put us in, the debacle with Medicare (which affected both my dad and grandpa, when he was alive), the attempts to squelch science (and not just the global change or warming or whatever the code word of the day is).
Even his "tax cuts" have hurt us. My wife and I fall in that donut hole where are taxes have actually gone up, even while are salaries remained stagnant.
His interference with personal choices like the Schiavo case. Fortunately, my wife and I were smart enough to file legal papers to prevent that from happening to us.
The list does go on as well.
So... what gives....?
Why aren't you blogging anymore?
I kinda miss you.
Post a Comment