|
|
|
| HOME | Atheism | Fiction |
Gay World |
HIV |
Opinion |
Reviews |
|
Mass hysteria in the USA 27 September 2004 Election time is approaching in the United States. On 2nd November, about half of the country's eligible voters will head for the polls. Of that number, fewer than half will vote for George W Bush, the current president. And the odds are that George W Bush will be re-elected. Look back forty-four years. 1960 saw the Democrat John Kennedy defeat the Republican Vice-President Richard Nixon. The race was close and Nixon lost partly, some claim, because the television lighting during the presidential debates made him look untrustworthy, and partly, others claim, because of vote-rigging in Kennedy's favour in Illinois and / or Texas. Whatever... Kennedy turned out to be a Bill Clinton avant la lettre, a man with a dubious personal life but with a vision of an inclusive society that would both support and be supported by all USAmericans. A few years later, meanwhile, when Nixon at last assumed the presidency, he turned out to be as dishonest as he appeared - although it's arguable that the Watergate scandal which forced him out of office was no worse a crime than the vote-rigging which had possibly deprived him in 1960. John Kerry, the Democratic contender in 2004, has been compared with Kennedy on many grounds, from the trivia of the identical initials, through a similar privileged Massachusetts background and a short stint of commendable war service to liberal politics. It is far too early to say - and it may never happen - but a Kerry presidency might echo Kennedy's in several ways, including a threat as great, if not greater, than the 1962 Cuba Missile Crisis, which brought the world to the bring of war. And hopefully a Kerry presidency would not end as tragically as Kennedy's did. Fewer comparisons can be made between George W Bush and Richard Nixon; other than both being Republicans and both having two daughters. Perhaps the most apposite comparison is their willingness to use Any Means Possible to ensure re-election to the White House. The major difference between the two is that while there is no evidence that he condones burglary, Bush appears willing to go much further than his predecessor to stay in power, to the extent of fundamentally undermining the consensus that holds USAmerican society together. Whether Bush has hijacked, or been hijacked by, the right-wing is moot and not particularly relevant at this stage. And many other columnists have discussed the specifics of US neo-conservatism which, according to some observers, has been plotting to take over the Republican party and the United States since the 1960s. My concern is more the form and impact of the political philosophy which drives George Bush and his cohorts than its terminology or historical roots - a philosophy marked by fear, demonisation and divisiveness. Michael Moore's erratic film Bowling for Columbine drew the world's attention to the extent to which fear dominates the lives of so many USAmericans, fuelling the gun lobby and leading to the worst gun-related violence in the industrialised world. But the emotion which Moore focused on is only one of a long list of phobias, from "socialism" to atheism, from abortion to homosexuality, which plague the US heartlands and those who represent them. Fear of change underlies all social conservatism, but in other Western countries most conservatives can distinguish between irrational fear and resistance to change for change's sake. And the fears which galvanise the Republican right are indeed irrational. "Socialised" medicine, acceptance of legalised abortion and protection of the rights of gay men and women* have not led to chaos in Canada or the European Union. Indeed these societies are in many ways more tolerant and peaceful than the USA. But instead of following the example of Canadians and Europeans who have put such issues behind them, Bushites seek not to overcome these phobias but to consciously or subconsciously use them as a means of maintaining power. Demonisation - the creation of enemies - is an essential tool in the manipulation of fear. Allege again and again that phenomena such as abortion or gay marriage are unparalleled threats and you provide a common enemy for your troops to fight against. Add in a media that is uncritical (the networks) or actively support you (Fox News) and your message is reinforced and your supporters' numbers and dedication increased. Demonisation has been used frequently throughout history - most notoriously in Nazi Germany's treatment of the Jews - and it is depressing to see it used once again in the United States. (It has raised its head every presidential election since Republicans' treatment of the Democratic candidate, Michael Dukakis, in the 1988 election.) The current victim is John Kerry - a decent, thoughtful man who has fought again and again for his country, as a soldier in Vietnam, as a citizen opposing the US's folly in that excursion and as a national senator, while George W Bush - who is not stupid, but who does not prioritise thought - spent years firstly in an alcohol- and cocaine-riddled haze later as a middling businessman with wealthy connections.** No matter that Bush's policies in Iraq have brought the US to the brink of civil war and led to the threat of global terrorism being higher now than at any time since 11th September 2001, it is Kerry who is portrayed as the man who will fatally weaken the United States. The lies about Kerry - his military service, his supposed willingness to allow US security to be held hostage by other countries - are matched by many other lies masked as rhetoric. Financial reforms which benefit the few rich and penalise the many middle-class and poor are portrayed in glowing terms; foreign policies which isolate the United States and which have spawned a new generation of terrorists are seen as strength and steadfastness; failed social programmes are hailed as successes; and so on and so on. The lies are bad enough, but it is the failure of all but a limited section of the US media to provide any balanced reporting and analysis on the campaign that is perhaps the most disturbing element of this election. And so far the appeal to fear appears to be working. Of course many USAmericans are appalled by Bushism, but enough of their fellow citizens are convinced that he is their saviour to describe their response as a mass movement. As for hysteria. it is true that most Republicans are not in a state of violent agitation and some are motivated simply by self-interest and greed. But almost certainly the majority of women and men who will vote for Bush will be motivated to do so by irrational fears that the Bushites have done their best to create and maintain. But what most Republicans and those who will vote for them do not realise is that even if Bush wins, they, along with all the rest of us, will lose - in terms of security, financial well-being and membership of a society where once every citizen was proud to be a USAmerican. * Okay, gay marriage is the current Rubicon that many societies are finding difficult to cross, but have no doubt that it will be crossed within the next generation. ** Even a middling businessman with drugs in his past may make a good president - although it seems that the drug of choice is now power. The key point here is not drug use or (lack of) military service, but honesty. Back to Opinion |
|
|
