The Ruthless Father and the Politics of Fear

In the psychology of the 2004 election, fear of terrorism plays a pivotal role.  Many voters seem willing to accept Bush's deceptions and aggressions because they believe that his stance towards terrorism will make them safer.  The Republican campaign continually highlights Bush's "decisive" response to 9/11, wrapping him in a patriotic flag, fighting evil-doers around the world.  Ominous predictions from Cheney warn of a heightened risk of terror if voters make the "wrong" choice.
 
Fear leads us to become psychologically younger and more desirous of a strong father to protect us from danger.  Someone who speaks in the language of the protective father can ease our anxieties on an emotional level.  This is well understood by Republican strategists, who amplify the level of fear with color-coded threats and ominous warnings while promising safety -- good marketing for a value system built around the protective father.
 
Democrats are not as adept in the ways of using fear as a manipulation, mainly because the underpinning value system is more driven by care - helping those who are less fortunate, nurturing kids through education, reducing war, taking care of the environment, extending health care benefits, etc. These values all tend to be flavored with care -- more connected to the nurturing mother than the tough father.
 
Given the climate of fear right now, Kerry has a choice of two main strategies.  The first is to demonstrate that he can be a superior protective father to Bush, citing his war heroism, surrounding himself with firemen and "manly" men, attacking and using a lot of "fighting" language. The main challenge with this strategy is that Bush has already proven his ruthlessness, which in the emotional language of the child can be an asset.  The child in us wants our father to be a ruthless killer to protect us.  The frightened child doesn't care whether our father lies or has integrity or obeys laws so long as he has OUR interests at heart.  
 
Kerry appears to be a man of much greater integrity than Bush.  In the politics of fear, this is not necessarily an asset. Books hit the shelves daily showing the Corleone characteristics of the Bush administration, which is actually reassuring to many who are fearful.  The fearful child hears that the "enemy" has been tortured at Abu Ghraib and is reassured that the stern father will do "anything" to protect him. That is why scandals involving lies about the Iraq war or Abu Ghraib have little effect on the polls. Scared voters appreciate mercenary qualities, so long as the ruthless leader is on our side.  I thus believe it's a losing battle for Kerry to simply posture as the better tough father; Bush and Cheney can demonstrate a level of aggressive ruthlessness that Kerry and Edwards will not match.
 
A second strategy Kerry (or activist groups) can adopt is to demonstrate that Bush has been abusing the American people themselves, which triggers a strong desire for a safer father figure and more caring values.  In other words, Kerry needs to show that Bush's ruthlessness extends equally to the people he is supposed to represent and that he is actively exploiting Americans for personal benefit.  Then that same ruthlessness becomes perceived as a real danger to us.  It's VERY frightening when the ruthless father starts abusing his own children.
 
The upshot of this logic is that those who recognize Bush as a danger to our country should not waste time on proving scandals overseas or demonstrating ethical breaches or cutthroat politics.  They should not even focus too heavily on better policies.  They should focus on the one area where Bush is very vulnerable and the one area that matters in the psychology of the fearful child: what is he doing to us?  Does the ruthless father have our interest at heart?  Will he abuse us?
 
At the heart of this matter is 9/11, which has been framed to be the Republicans' biggest asset, the justification for all subsequent policies.  In the world of emotions, 9/11 was an overwhelming demonstration of our vulnerability and our need to be protected by a ruthless father.  However, if this commonly understood story changes, that would shift the psychology of the entire race.  This might involve a shift from seeing Bush as protecting us on 9/11 to seeing Bush as manipulating or even harming us for his own ends.
 
In other words, if the frame of 9/11 were shifted such that a reasonably large number of people believed that Bush exacerbated or permitted the damage that day, the prevalent psychology of the child would flip and the fear would be directed against Bush rather than Al Qaeda terrorists.  All it would take would be strong evidence that Bush knew in advance about the attacks and consciously allowed them to happen to advance political, military, and economic plans.  There is ample evidence that he has used the attacks as a justification for a range of policies and actions.  The only question is whether he knew in advance and decided to allow the attacks to happen to reap these political, military, and economic benefits.
 
To those who haven't been exposed to the actual evidence, that question may sound far-fetched. But on August 30, 2004, a Zogby poll revealed that nearly 50% of New Yorkers believe that members of the administration knew about the attacks in advance and "consciously failed to act." Dozens of books and movies have sprung up examining this evidence, many by respected scholars and journalists. In Canada, a poll in May showed that 63% of Canadians believe the U.S. government knew in advance and chose not to act.  In Japan, a two-hour special in early September on Asahi, the second-largest TV network, explored the evidence for government complicity.  In America, there have been dozens of conferences, citizens' inquiries, and protest actions- all focused on this evidence.  The National Green Party has even issued a press release on the matter.  
 
Those who are demanding deeper inquiry now number in the hundreds of thousands, including a former member of the first Bush administration, a retired air force colonel, families of the victims, highly respected authors, investigative journalists, peace and justice leaders, and former Pentagon staff. Even Bob Dole's former chief of staff Stanley Hilton has joined in, launching a lawsuit representing 400 families that names Bush and Cheney as suspects in the murders of 9/11.
 
There is simply too much that is suspicious about that day, from the lack of air defense response to Bush's strange behavior to the lack of missile battery protection around the Pentagon to the absence of a single person being fired or reprimanded for failures.  When seen as a whole, the accumulating evidence clearly points to a cover-up of something. What?  Why were high-level officials warned not to fly that day? Who profited from insider trading of stocks?   Why was there such strong resistance from the White House to an investigation?  Why have key people like FBI translator Sibel Edmonds been issued gag orders?  Why didn't the 911 commission address most of the questions posed by families?
 
It is important to recognize that the movement bringing these issues forward is not based on vague conspiracy suspicions.  It is based on a growing body of incriminating evidence, all of which makes it seem highly probable that at least some high-level government officials allowed 9/11 to happen on purpose.
 
The mainstream media has largely balked at reporting on the movement or investigating themselves. There are signs of change, however, from coverage on Democracy Now to mentions in the Washington Post and an extended article in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution.  Hopefully, intrepid journalists will take up this story in increasing numbers.  If not, the American people will be asked to make important electoral decisions in November without the full story.  For those who want more information, I recommend starting with theologian David Ray Griffin's book New Pearl Harbor and Canadian journalist Barrie Zwicker's DVD The Great Conspiracy.  You can also track the best of the movement at www.911truth.org <http://www.911truth.org/> , or even create your own house party teach-in.
 
In closing, I urge concerned citizens to pursue this inquiry publicly and quickly.  The prevalent psychology of the fearful child is not helping us to stand in our greatness as a country.  By showing that the fiercely protective father may have turned against his own family -- the very citizens that he is supposed to represent -- we can begin to reclaim what is beautiful about America.
 
The events of 9/11 are at the heart of this election.  As long as the official story remains the accepted story, Bush is likely to win for the reasons detailed above. If the official story about 9/11 is exposed as a deception of the American people, though, we can bet that voters will make choices that lead us out of the fog of fear into the sunshine of truth again. And that is how we can begin to create a truly safer world.

read other articles by Stephen Dinan in his article archive