Fear mongering for fun and profit
Ted Kennedy would have us believe "the only thing we have to fear is four more years of George Bush.'' If that's true, senator, then why was that dopey kid playing "Amazing Grace" on the fiddle at your convention?
It's a recurring theme: the Democrats accusing Bush and the Republicans of cynically manipulating our fears for political reasons. It's ironic, though, because I watched maybe a third of the Democratic convention, but it was enough to be exposed to a veritable litany of fear mongering -- four more years of George W. Bush will result in
- loss of reproductive freedom
- turning the clock back on civil rights (whatever the hell that means)
- losing our jobs
- having our jobs exported to Bangalore
- having John Ashcroft revoke our few meager civil liberties that remain intact after the Patriot Act
- dirty air
- dirty water
- unaffordable health care
- shitty education for our children
- and yes, last but not least, we will be less safe from terrorists. Exploiting terror fears is not unique to Republicans, you see.
Now look, there's nothing new here. Appealing to our basest instincts may not be the highest or noblest path a politician can take, but it's been a fact of life in American politics since time immemorial. Politicians exploit our fears. The difference is that it's fine for Democrats to do it with their strong-suit issues (health care, education, and the environment), but, God forbid, if Republicans do likewise with their one remaining strong suit (national security), it's sinister and evil.
I'm writing about this because yesterday I faced another broadside from my liberal New York friends (redundant?) about how Homeland Security's recent terror warnings were politically motivated and timed, since it was based, in part, on three-year-old intelligence.
Frankly, the timing angle is a bit hard for me to figure out. Had it happened during the convention, I could understand. Perhaps if Kerry had emerged from the convention with a significant bounce in the polls that the White House wanted to deflate, I could sort of understand. But what do they think Bush was trying to accomplish, exactly?
Moreover, it's far from clear to me that the elevated threat level helps Bush. In fact, just Monday I wrote how the liberals in my life were gleefully pointing to the threat level as evidence of Bush policies' failure. Three years after 9/11, and New York area residents are still having their commutes interrupted by paramilitary troops with machine guns. If it's truly a political ploy to boost Bush's standings in the polls, I submit that it's a very risky one, and one that could easily backfire.
But, of course, I don't really believe that's the case. The incompetence and tone-deafness the administration exhibited in handling the announcement did nothing but provide fodder for the conspiracy theorists, but I think the timing of the announcement had much more to do with the expected date of the attacks than with the timestamp on the underlying intelligence.
The reports I've read indicate that the attacks were planned for early September, two months before the election. Now would seem a reasonable time to start ramping up security. Moreover, it's becoming increasingly clear that the alert was triggered by much more than merely some three-year-old data (emphasis mine).
Some of the surveillance files that triggered the nation's latest terrorism alert were reviewed and updated by Al Qaeda just months ago and dovetail with other, fresh intelligence that indicates the terrorism network remains intent on launching a major U.S. attack during the presidential election campaign, U.S. authorities said Monday.
...
But several senior U.S. counterterrorism officials said that the surveillance, obtained in Pakistan and reviewed late last week by authorities in Washington, came amid a continuing stream of intelligence corroborating Al Qaeda's determination to launch strikes in the U.S.
In a similar vein, here is this from the New York Times:
The officials said the separate stream of intelligence, which they had not previously disclosed, reached the White House only late last week and was part of a flow that the officials said had prompted them to act urgently in the last few days.
...
In addition to the surveillance activity, detailed in reports uncovered late last week from computer disks in Pakistan, a senior intelligence official said that "very current and recent activity on the part of Al Qaeda'' has left little doubt that "Al Qaeda is moving toward the execution stage of attacks here in the homeland.''
The administration's bungling of the release (particularly Tom Ridge's shameful politicking on Monday) was unfortunate, but it seems the charges that this alert is politically motivated are unfounded.
I understand why the Democrats are sensitive about this issue, though. It's because the public still trusts Republicans more than Democrats when it comes to protecting our borders. If the Democrats truly wanted to neutralize the terror issue as a political weapon, they could begin by doing a little soul-searching and ask themselves why that should be the case.