Monday, September 10, 2007

When There is no Policy to Discuss, "Keep 'em Scared"

With such a dearth of policy and real issues to discuss, (ahem), the "right" once again finds a need to remind us to be frightened.

I mean, speaking about the frightening impact of our government ignoring GHG's, just isn't sexy enough, I guess. Too intangible and waaay off in the future to write about now. How about the ways in which the government is not respecting Canadians rights? Nah, boring cause some Canadians don't matter anyway. Strategy in Afghanistan? No way! Terrorist appeasement written all over that one. SPP? Nope. Potential election fraud? "We're the con's, the rules are irrelevant to us!"

No, when there is nothing of substance out there, it's time to get back to "keeping the people afraid".

Peter Worthington felt it important to keep that issue on the table, lest we actually be allowing reason to prevail. You see, if that happens, the con's are in trouble. It's the one thing they are good at, keeping you off balance so they can take care of you, but of course we know it's really only about taking care of themselves.

In the chaotic days following 9/11, there was general relief that it was George Bush who won the U.S. presidency, and not Al Gore. Bush was leader of the moment who rallied his country, reassured the people, showed neither panic nor hesitation in recognizing the enemy and vowing to eliminate it.

Oh absolutely, I was thrilled to watch the man reading "My Pet Goat". I would have been really disturbed to see Gore step into action.

America and the West were rocked out of complacency by 9/11. Until then, Osama bin Laden, al-Qaida terrorism, Islamic militancy and extremism, were mostly ignored or under-estimated.

Ummm, only by Bush and co., apparently. Everyone else had been jumping up and down to get the administration to recognise the threat.

To America's credit following 9/11, the country as a whole showed little tendency to exact revenge or display hostility towards individual Muslims. Most developed countries have not made individuals scapegoats for acts of religious terrorism.

I wonder where this Worthington guy lives? It's a shame he doesn't have access to news. He could have read about Guantanamo, the Patriot Act, No Fly Lists, Rendition, Abu Ghraib, not the mention the charming language used on many right wing blogs to describe Muslims. I know he's speaking of America as a whole, but they weren't exactly out in the streets protesting these things at the beginning. There may not have been many citizens who have exacted revenge, but not display hostility? Pulleeeze.

We know, now, that in some mosques the imams and religious leaders preach peace in English, but are more militant in their own language. Little is done to deal with this reality.

Hmm, sounds a little hostile no? I for one had no idea that Peace is only a word found in the English language and no other. And imagine, all those imams fooling us that way? What an incredibly clever tactic...the police forces will never figure that one out. I guess I really should be afraid.

In a Conservative world, it's important that fear be kept fueled, through real or imagined events and, the less predictable the cause of that fear, the better. Not being afraid brings clarity and that would be the real enemy wouldn't it? The ability to really see what is going on, what rights are being trampled, how real issues at home are being ignored. None of those things would serve a Conservative government, because those are the things that they don't believe government should be involved with.

Watch for Security and Law & Order, coming in a Throne Speech near you.


Anonymous said...

"it's important that fear be kept fueled, through real or imagined events and, the less predictable the cause of that fear, the better."
Which you are doing, right. Remember the liberal mantra, "Harper is scary", repeat ad nauseum.
Reads more like the liberal manifesto to me.

Scotian said...

oh so scared..:

Harper is scary in the Canadian political context, as has been supported by his words both spoken and written from the late 80s until 2005 when he finally realized that openly campaigning on such beliefs could never bring him to power. Not to mention his strong links to the neoconservative view of the world by sharing the same political philosophy underpinning both the neocons and Harper's Calgary School of political thought (Leo Strauss), his on the record say one thing to get elected do the exact opposite once elected record starting from literally the first day he was sworn into power (Fortier appointment, the buy-out of Emerson, appointing a Defence lobbyist to Defence name O'Connor who proved out to be an utter failure in that portfolio). So yes actually, the scary Harper agenda is rooted in the scary Harper statements like his policy speech and paper in 2003 as CA leader and LOO that the only way for Canadian Conservativism to thrive in this country was to embrace the culture war model used by the GOP/movement conservatives in the USA, and which his actions since have confirmed he adopted.

In other words Harper is the author of the "scary Harper" image that you find so problematic, not the Liberals, although they certainly saw nothing wrong with using it as an attack on him, which given it is a fair description of his core beliefs as he has stated them for a couple of decades us entirely reasonable. It is not made up; it is rooted in his thinking as recorded, and his failure to ever repudiate these positions, all he has done in stopped talking about them in public, which is not repudiation but concealment. Sucks to be so ill informed that one can be shredded as easily as you have just been doesn't it.

burlivespipe said...

Hey, Oh So Scurry...
We liberals are off the 'Harper is Scary' meme and now onto the obvious, 'Harper is an incompetent boob with the financial acumen of an anchove and has the leadership quotient of Bagdad Bob.'
He's not so scary; apparently, the less integrity you prove to have, all the wind goes out of your ghost act.

Karen said...

burl, lol. Agreed, though as Scotian said, he's still not to be trusted and in my opinion, scary in that he manipulates as I've suggested.

The only thing we didn't count on was his ability to, as you say, lose his integrity to such a degree, that his motives are not obvious, though even that is shifting.

oh so scared, again as Scotian pointed out, I'm not fear mongering in the least, I'm stating fact. Whenever there is a lull in policy/issues, the right goes straight to fear, as this article and many others illustrate.

Do you doubt that the Throne Speech will contain what I suggested? If you don't, then you should check what Bills Harper is allowing to die on the order paper. There was plenty to work with there, but now they will make it even scarier, in an effort to paint the opposition as "soft".

Predictable and ridiculous. Look south, we've been watching it for years.

Red Tory said...

Harper isn't scary, but his wingnut supporters sure are.

Karen said...

RT, I agree his wing nuts are. The point I was trying to make though, was that he has many wingnut followers and many sit in the media.

I suppose he's only scary if we allow him to do what he'd like. The fact that so few know who he is and what he wants, is not comforting to me.

Furthermore, that the media seem oblivious to the man and his intentions, is frustrating beyond belief.

What do you call a media that has eaten the pap?

Anonymous said...

People you want humor
i have a very funny vid
on my blog you'll love it!;)