September 19, 2004
Fear is our Guide
We have finally given in to the worst of our impulses in the search for leadership. For the first time in my life we are actually electing a candidate based on our fear not our hope for a better nation. By this point in the campaign I genuinely dislike both of the men running for President from the major parties.
I dislike Kerry for embracing Bush’s nasty little oil war disguised as a sudden conversion to democratic ideals; and Bush because of his basic incompetence to govern this nation without tearing it apart along the cheesy political lines he and Cheney have drawn in the sands of our times. I do believe that Kerry will do better if he wins which is looking less likely with every mistake his campaign makes. But my real emotional connection to this campaign is disgust at the way we are so easily manipulated by our fears of terrorism. The damn terrorists are winning! This campaign is proof of that fact. They do have us terrified, we are so afraid that we will give up our ideals our civil liberties and maybe even our democracy to elect one of two men who are both ill equipped to lead this nation out of these dark days of fear.
I wanted to be passionately devoted to the election of the Democratic candidate this time out. Here we are eight weeks before the election and I am simply going to vote for him because Bush is a genuine disaster for the nation in regard to many of our most vital policy areas. Kerry would be better but marginally enough that he will probably never get the chance. How pathetic it is that we can spend a billion dollars on this campaign to find out that fear is the governing emotion in our politics today. We are a nation losing our grip on reality and this election season has underlined that fact.
Oil is a real burgeoning problem for the economies of the Western Democracies, there are a lot of words written about that issue every day now. It is hard to deny that importing oil is a problem for this nation, look at our balance of payments deficit and it becomes obvious to all but the most intransigent believers in the stupid idea that deficits don’t matter.
Pete Peterson who was our Secretary of Commerce under Richard Nixon points out just how much they do matter in his recent book “Running On Empty”. But the most masterful of the deficit builders in our recent political history, George W Bush, will be kept in office because the fear factor is greater than our common sense today.
Deeper than that is the underlying fact that our foreign policy has been shaped for decades not by our desire to export democracy but by our growing dependence on foreign sources of energy, particularly oil. Yes we fought Communism to a standstill by creating more effective warriors in Afghanistan. Russia was crumbling economically before that war sent it sliding down to the place where the only possible response was to change their system. Now Putin is dictator over the remaining parts of the Soviet Empire in all except the term applied to him by his captive press. Russia is a major supplier of oil to the world and its stores of oil and natural gas are going to last for at least thirty years. It is still our greatest threat and the greatest threat to the world with its increasingly decrepit stock of nuclear weapons atop aging rockets aimed at our cities.
We are afraid Al Queda will get one nuke and use it on us. Russia still has thirty thousand warheads aimed in our direction but we are doing nothing to reduce that number, it defies logic. Kerry can’t even come out with a clear statement about the deficiencies of Bush’s disarmament policies and the clarity of his own and be heard over the fear of terrorism. If anyone thinks that Russia, and particularly the old members of the KGB that are in power there, has given up its dreams of world dominance they are fools. We are now running down the path to future economic disaster with our combined deficits of over a trillion dollars a year. The cold war cost was a saunter compared to this combined set of follies. Meanwhile Russia’s economy is growing because of its oil and gas exports to Europe. How long will it take before we are weak enough economically to really suffer an economic disaster that weakens our ability to support our military at the level we do today? It will take less than four more years at this pace.
Now I am terrified, but not of the terrorists, of our own dedication to spending ourselves into an economic hole that more than one generation will have to work to fill in. A trillion dollars a year, think of it for a minute. That is how much debt we are creating for our nation by buying all of those cheap foreign goods and oil by the SUV full and spending more tax money than we take in each year. Yes free trade is good for the economy, but is it going to kill our golden goose by overfeeding it in the short term? Many more educated men and women than I believe it will under the current policy structure. Fear means we will not be changing those policies any time soon.
More than anything else I am saddened by the fact that we are now both willing to believe and being led into believing that these are somehow not tax dollars we are spending in our deficit spending spree. Bush has raised the taxes on every future generation of citizens here by raising the national debt. Sometime in the future these debts will have to be paid, that is an inescapable fact of life. How are we going to pay them? By collecting taxes, is it that hard to understand? The trillion or more additional dollars tacked on to our national debt by the Bush II deficits means having to pay interest on that many dollars and interest rates are still low, what will happen when they rise above ten percent by the end of this decade? Now that coming tax bill is something to fear if you are middle class and hanging on by the tips of your fingers like so many families are today. But we are too afraid of the terrorists to see that problem coming.
Today we have a seven trillion three hundred billion dollar national debt. It will hit ten trillion dollars early in the next decade by the most conservative estimates. At ten percent interest, which is in the lower range of possible interest rates we will be paying by then, we will be spending a trillion dollars a year on interest alone. With a twelve trillion dollar economy that interest alone will consume any reasonable level of economic growth. It leaves nothing for income expansion for any class of citizens in this nation and it will get worse from that point onward. Bush wants to talk about an ownership society but he knows what he has guaranteed our children is actually ownership of a huge debt growing grander every year. Fear that! It is the most real threat we face today, and it is of our own making! God bless and keep you all safe as our debt rises and rises and rises. ©Henri Reynard/GoldenBrush Interactive
Posted by Henri Reynard at September 19, 2004 11:54 AMHenry,
“The damn terrorists are winning! This campaign is proof of that fact. They do have us terrified, we are so afraid that we will give up our ideals our civil liberties and maybe even our democracy to elect one of two men who are both ill equipped to lead this nation out of these dark days of fear.”
I couldn’t have said it better myself. Just this last Friday I attended a three and a half hour court case where the Democrats were suing the Populist Party political group in Arkansas in order to get Ralph Nader off the ballot. Their arguments were somewhat flawed and I want to say Nader will come out on top, but the Judge won’t make a decision until tomorrow. The fear has gone as far as to make the Democrats, once a respectable party, sue other candidates off the ballots and derail democracy just so they can remove Bush from office. That is just sad.
I want a president who can at least start with the oil problem and fix it.
Until we have vehicles that get better gas mileage we will be dependent on foreign oil.
I am waiting for someone to invent or sell me (since it has most likely been invented) that little gadget that I can have placed on my engine to make my vehicle get twice or three times the gas mileage I get now. It probably only takes a minor adjustment to the fuel injectors.
What would happen though?
We wouldn’t buy as much oil and that would mess up the economies of those countries that rely on it. Public relations , as bad as they are now, would only get worse.
People that work for the oil companies would be layed off.
Gas stations would close and more people would be layed off.
The tax revenues that our government receives from the pump wouldn’t be there. The tax would have to be raised and the price for the consumer would be higher. Double or triple to match the better mileage.
People can’t buy vehicles that don’t run on gasoline or diesel because the pumps aren’t there for them to fill up. The gas companies say they can’t afford to make the switch and want the government to foot the bill.
Too bad there isn’t a way to get better gas mileage now and use less oil while we make the switch to alternative fuels.
I shouldn’t say there isn’t a way. It centers around big business, money, jobs, and the economy. Not just here, all over the world.
It can’t be done overnight and it has to be done the right way.
Countries that rely on the sale of oil for their economies have to be given time to work out how they will survive without it.
Businesses that are connected to crude oil and gasoline would have to have time to make the switch. Including car manufacturers.
I want a Presidential candidate who says that he/she will ‘TRY TO’ and not ‘I PROMISE’ unless he/she knows for sure it can be kept. Promises only get broken and we can at least say … ‘Well he tried to do it. It was a good idea.’
Posted by: Dawn at September 19, 2004 01:56 PMHenri,
Remember how neither you nor anyone else had ever heard of the phrase “Weapons of Mass Destruction” before spring of 2002? That’s because it was made up. It was made up by the Bush administration for exactly the reasons you stated, to strike fear in our hearts, and justify an attack on Iraq.
I know a little more about that kind of thing than the average bear because of my personal experience. I served 6 years as a B-52 Radar Navigator (bombardier) in SAC. That term included two years of my life on nuclear alert. It also included a little training on chemical warfare.
In spring of ‘02 the Bush admnistration started its Iraq campaign, and the first trial balloon went up. I vividly remember the article in the local newspaper because ‘intelligence’ suggested Saddam was within 6 months of acquiring a nuke.
Within the month this ‘intelligence’ was discounted. The estimate was revised to 5-10 years. (We now know this was wrong too. The program consisted of some papers in a scientist’s house, & a centrifuge buried in a rose garden in 1991. There were other lies about aluminum tubes, and rumors of enormous underground facilities in Baghdad, as well as a hilariously bad forgery from Niger… but let’s stick to the point). Now, this far-off concern about a nuclear program was not nearly as important a threat as Al Qaida- remember, it was less than a year since 9/11- and at this point the term WMD a appeared for the first time. It was generally assumed to include chemical and biological weapons along with nuclear weapons. This new term could be used to instill fear in the public, hence ‘WMD.’ But this new term would not suffice in and of itself. A nuclear program by itself would not do it, and neither would mere possession of chemical & biological weapons; after all, Saddam possessed these in the First Gulf War, and did not use them even when invaded. To really whip up the fear & war fever, and distract the public’s attention from a bad economy in the face of looming mid-term elections, one more connection needed to occur, one more accusation- that Saddam would put these WMD’s into the hands of Al Qaida.
Sweet Jesus, what despicable lies the Bush administration foisted upon us!
In your post you express concern about Russian nukes falling into the hands of Al Qaida. I can re-assure you with a reasaonable degree of accuracy that this won’t happen. It isn’t enough to acquire the physical weapon. A user must also possess the codes to arm the bomb. The US has made sure other countries received our safeing technology & methodology. The worse Al Qaida can do is set off a ‘dirty bomb.’ This would be a huge pain in the ass; however, its effects would be limited to a relatively small area, and even then it’s difficult to pull off effectively. Same goes with chemical weapons. Rememember that cult’s attack on the subway in Japan? It’s just not that easy. Politicians can’t afford to say things like that…
Don, you claim to know more about this than the “average bear,” but what you’re saying is just plain false.
“Remember how neither you nor anyone else had ever heard of the phrase “Weapons of Mass Destruction” before spring of 2002? That’s because it was made up. It was made up by the Bush administration for exactly the reasons you stated, to strike fear in our hearts, and justify an attack on Iraq.”
Why are such blatant falsehoods necessary to attack to Bush? Nobody had heard the term “weapons of mass destruction” before 2002 and Bush just made it up to scare people?
President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998: “One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line.”
President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998: “If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction program.”
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18,1998: “He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983.”
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998”: “[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq’s refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs.”
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998: “Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.”
Not only was the term in wide use long before Bush, Democrats were apparently trying to “scare” us about Hussein’s WMD programs.
I stand corrected, Martin. I had never heard that term before the Bush administration, and never heard it while I served (1980-1986). Your citations are from 1998, so I suppose that is when the term was coined. I would point out that a policy of regime change, containment, or even launching cruise missiles is very different from one of invasion and occupation. It would also seem that term wasn’t very well known (?) until popularized by Bush, but that’s splitting hairs…
Btw, my attacks are not against Bush, they are against the Bush administration. They ALL need to go.
That the term has been used to scare the American public remains demonstrable, following the course of events I described.
And yes, the Bush administration lied, and lied, and lied, in order to fill us with fear, and whip us into a war fever. Perhaps you find terms like “miscalculation” (Bush) or “exagerration” (Rumsfield) acceptable. Many lies have not been addressed by the Bush administration- they pretend we were merely ‘misled.’ Are you familiar with the Office of Special Plans?
Another note on whether Al Qaida can attack the US with a nuclear weapon… nuclear weapons have a shelf life. The longer they sit around, the less likely they are to work. Same holds true for chemical weapons, most degrade with time. In the case of the Russian arsenal, time is on our side.
If Al Qaida were going to acquire a weapon it would almost have to be through a country such as Pakistan or North Korea, and given their situations, it’s unlikely they would willingly part with their weapons. Exploded nukes have tell-tale signatures, they can be linked to the country of origin….
” incompetence to govern this nation without tearing it apart”
Last time I checked this nation hadn’t broken up into a loose confederation of states.
Posted by: semper at September 20, 2004 12:11 AMThe damn terrorists are winning!” I would have to disagree. They can only win if we stand down and allow them to control their unwashed masses, turning them into a sea of holy warriors. The arguments that fear of terrorists is being cultivated by the GOP is laughable. What is the alternative, to embrace or negotiate with radical Islam? That is what I would expect from the left, blame their sorry state of existence on us and coddle them like needle packing addicts. The methadone for their blood addiction would be our abandonment of Israel of course.
Fear of losing Medicare benefits and social security (dragged up every four years one week before the election) is the only fear mongering at play in this election season. The fear of terrorism is as real as the foe.
Kerry will lose because he stands for nothing or because what he really stands for is revealed. He is an “internationalist” by his own description to the Harvard Crimson in 1970. He went on to explain that he would not place troops on foreign soil without UN approval. Fear, yes I have feared; fear that we will not have the resolve to finish what we started.
What will Kerry do about Iran and N. Korea? I wager he would make a deal. And prolong a battle with a much stronger enemy for a future leader with moral courage. This is a critical election. We must face the greatest enemy of free people since Hitler. We need to do that with conviction and strength, neither of which Kerry possesses.
What is the alternative, to embrace or negotiate with radical Islam?
How about discredit, isolate, and destroy it. But that’s a little too nuanced for Bush, isn’t it. It’s easier just to invade and occupy every single Muslim country.
What will Kerry do about Iran and N. Korea? I wager he would make a deal.
You just described Bush’s approach. I’ll bet Kerry will isolate N. Korea and promote a reunification with the south, just like Clinton was doing until Bush derailed the process and forced that paranoid wacko, Kim Jong-Il, to start building nukes.
Kerry has very clear positions on all these issues. they’re on his web site and in his two campaign books. He talks about them every day on the campaign trail.
It’s too bad the media is fixated on scandal, but when has the media ever been even-handed and informative? If Americans are spouting off or making decisions without checking primary sources and paying more attention to deeds than words, then we get four more years of what we’ve just been through.
BTW, Henri & Dawn. I’m a huge fan of Kerry’s energy policy.
