In the past weeks, there has been much discussion about how a US military attack in the Middle East might serve to “radicalize” Muslims, and spawn even more terrorism. That’s certainly a fair topic for consideration.
But what happens if the US continues to endure terrorist attacks on its own soil, perpetrated by Middle Eastern Muslims? Is there a point at which the US (or at least a majority of its citizens) itself becomes “radicalized?” Even to the point of abandoning its principles of tolerance? Could we eventually see something very like the Japanese-American internment camps? Or at least a rebirth of the mentality that led to those camps?
What happens if a Presidential candidate emerges (let’s call him “Pitt Buchanard”) who starts playing on voters’ fears of Middle Eastern terrorists. Let’s say this candidate plays the race and religion cards either implicitly, or maybe explicitly. Let’s say this hypothetical candidate says that the incumbent has not gone far enough to fight terrorism? Might such a hawkish and intolerant candidate manage to win an election? Where might that lead?
Might we even reach the point where someone starts thinking about amending the Constitution? (“All persons are endowed with these rights except…”)
I’m heartened that the attack on the WTC has been followed by calls for tolerance. Frankly, though, I’m worried about how long that tolerance would endure if terrorist attacks continue.
Is there a danger that this situation, if it devolves, could open a doorway to fascism?
Is there a danger here? Certainly although I’m not too worried yet.
Anytime a society comes under extreme stress all manner of funkiness can set in. Witness post WWI Germany to see how Nazi Germany rose out of it. Except for a few diehards most Germans seem pretty embarrassed by the whole fiasco. How do otherwise good people let themselves get in such a position? How about the McCarthy era here in the US?
Unfortunately our deeper ideals of personal freedom tend to go out the window when we are threatened. Such ideals are subtle and have a hard time standing up when you have a gun stuck in your ribs or your only child gets killed by a suicide bomber.
IMO our society has a strong built in knee-jerk reflex and I think a real danger exists to our freedoms not to mention innocent muslim-American citizens. It’ll take a lot of work from a lot of people to try and keep a lid on American extremism but I think it can be done…up to a point. If it got bad enough I shudder to think of what might happen right here at home.
The OP fancies himself clever, but only shows how little attention he pays to current politics.
Pat Buchanan, the alleged fascist who’s obviously prominent in the OP’s nightmares, does NOT support war in the Middle East (you may recall that he vigorously opposed Desert Storm ten years ago)! Just the opposite! He fervently opposes American imperialism (HIS word), and wants us to bring our troops home!
Indeed, if Buchanan had been elected President, he’d have put an end to U.S. assistance to Israel, which would have made him quite popular among Arabs.
There’s plenty to dislike about Pat Buchanan, but no sane, intelligent person can suggest he’s a warmonger, or that he wants to nuke the Middle East. If anything, he’d be an isolationist, like the “America Firsters” of the 1930s.
I think the risk of racism related fascism isn’t in the immeadiate future. I think there’s far more danger in the ‘protective’ measures they’re going to take after this.
There will be enough song and dance (lots of bombing good old ragheads, lots of arrests on terrorists, real or not, ect) to look good, similar to the war on drugs.
Those show arrests/bombings/ect will fuel the people to believe that they’re accomplishing something by selling away their freedom, and will encourage them to do it more.
In short, if you liked the War on Drugs, you’ll love the War On Terrorism.
Spoke- “lighten up”? I thought I WAS rather light-hearted in dismissing your premise. Maybe I was too subtle again.
Regardless of what name you give your imaginary fascist, your fundamental premise remains nonsensical. IS there a far-right lunatic fringe in this country? Sure, though it’s far tinier than you fear. But you’ll search in vain for any right-wing loonies who are foaming at the mouth to make war.
Spoke, the problem is, you and your ideological soulmates are stuck in a Cold War mentality! In your backward mindset, it’s still 1963, and “Dr. Strangelove” is a documentary! You imagine that the military is filled with right-wing maniacs who are hell-bent on ruling the world.
In the REAL world, in the year 2001, the right-wing loonies have ZERO interest in conquering ANYBODY! In fact, the current crop of right-wing loonies want the U.S. to withdraw from the world. The dream of Pat Buchanan and his ilk is to put up a big wall around America, and quarantine us from those bad people in that bad old outside world.
THAT mindset comes with its own set of problems, of course, but they’re NOT the problems Spoke seems to be worried about.
I have soulmates? Gee whiz, maybe I could invite them over for a party or something. I could use a new set of friends. (Mom always said I’d find a soulmate one day…)
Fact is, you don’t know my “ideology,” astorian so you’re wasting your time trying to find a pigeon hole for me. There is no pigeon hole big enough to hold me.
Who said anything about the military being filled with loonies? Quit putting words in my mouth, and quit hijackin’ my thread. I also didn’t say anything about the “right wing” or about “loonies,” period. You seem to be viewing this debate through a partisan prism of your own manufacture.
I think both Republicans and Democrats (and Libertarians and Socialists and Green Party members for that matter) need to watch this situation with a wary eye.
My premise is hardly “nonsensical.” We have seen this nation descend into hysteria many times before. There was the hysterical fear of slave rebellion in the pre-Civil War South, following Nat Turner’s rebellion. There was the so-called “Red Scare” of the 20’s following the Russian Revolution. There was the hysterical fear of Japanese during WWII (as pointed out in the OP) and the McCarthy-inspired national hysteria of the 50’s (as pointed out by Whack-a-Mole).
In each of these situations, we have seen hysteria lead to restriction of rights and freedoms. There is nothing nonsensical about trying to forestall a modern hysteria, and the loss of freedoms that it might entail.
Astorian, I didn’t read the O.P. as being so much about the U.S. going on a campaign of imperialist conquest as being about the U.S. enaging in a repressive security crackdown at home. This might well be coupled with a more isolationist policy in foreign affairs.
One reassuring note: there is a strong libertarian–even maybe a little anti-government paranoid–streak in the “hard right”. With the ACLU and Bob Barr looking out for us, perhaps we can rest a bit easier, no?