Krauthammer: Be afraid. Be very afraid.

Great Debates
1

Just read this Charles Krauthammer editorial in Time, arguing that the emphasis on terrorism that the Bush Administration uses, and that his opponents deplore as “fearmongering,” is the only rational response to the concept on the War on Terror, and that it’s necessary if we’re to have effective deterrance and proper vigilance.

Of course, one could argue, hey, look who that opinion supports more (though he does make the point that one can genuinely believe that a second Bush term is more likely to increase terrorism), but it does bring up an interesting point: how afraid do we need to be in order to deal with the threat properly. Obviously, we can’t be COMPLETELY and totally unafraid; the possibility exists, and it’s real, and it seems fairly evident to me that this would lead to complacency. On the other hand, Bush’s detractors say he’s overdoing it, crying wolf for selfish reason. Where’s the happy medium? How scared SHOULD the average American be?

2

I’m glad that you started this thread, Leaper. After reading that editorial yesterday, I was curious to hear the thoughts that others had on it.

I think that the writer made good points (kinda), when he said things like “…it is the absence of fear that is utterly irrational,” but overall Krauthammer came across as a chicken-little, IMNSHO.

Something I found interesting, was when he was describing Richard Feynman’s observations regarding Hiroshima:

Doesn’t this just show us that we shouldn’t let fear run our lives?

I’m a stern believer that we should, obviously, not ignore the threat posed by terrorism, but we shouldn’t be going on and on about it like we currently are.
LilShieste

3

“Terrorist - Someone who terrorizes”

If your afraid… then well the terrorists have been sucessful ? I think so.

Bush keeps talking about how they “hate our freedoms”… and then goes to restrict those very same freedoms. Naturally we don’t know exactly what Bin Laden wanted to achieve with 9/11… but its effect are still working. By keeping that fear up for whatever reason increases the idea that terrorism is the way to be heard and effective.

Everytime someone has to take off their shoes in an airport its a "victory" for Bin Laden in a way. 

On the other hand if you simply don't care about terrorists... will the FBI, CIA and other agencies stop protecting you ? A bit of fear might keep vigilance up... but it certainly doesn't mean your dropping your defenses. There must be of course political will to spend inordinant amounts of money in "defense"... and fear helps fuel that defense consumption that would otherwise be politically difficult.
4

Of Charles Krauthammer? Plenty!

While he’s made a name as a columnist, he’s also very involved in the Project for a New American Century (the neo-con academy), and a Bush appointee to the Council on Bioethics. Link

He’s a flack for the far right, keep that in mind when you read his screeds.

5

I am afraid all right–that Charles K. has lost his mind.

He became part of the Ann Coulter ‘Call treason to those holding different opinions’ crowd.

Truth is treasonous to their ignorant bliss.

6

No matter what Charles Manson says, awareness ≡ fear

7

No matter what Charles Manson says, awareness ≠ fear

8

I found it incredible that Krauthammer would portray Richard Feynman as a man with a pessimistic outlook on humanity. Sheesh! Just the titles of some of Feynman’s books apply here: The Pleasure of Finding Things Out and What Do You Care What Other People Think?

9

It seems to me that the biggest problem with this discussion is the negative stigma that the word “fear” carries. After all, it is wrong to fear. Only the weak and the ignorant fear. The brave most certainly do not.

But what is this feeling? “A feeling of agitation and anxiety caused by the presence or imminence of danger.” So says American Heritage Dictionary. So, if danger is indeed present or imminent, is it wrong to be fearful? Or is it a natural and even healthy reaction?

Fear is the natural reaction to danger. Fight or flight. It instills a conciousness of one’s environment that might otherwise be ignored to a greater or lesser degree. It exists to maximize one’s likelihood of remaining safe and unharmed. It tries to preserve freedom from harm. Freedom is good, right?

I think that Krauthammer is quite right in saying that this is an election about protection from “vicous terrorists”. The Kerry camp has indeed played the angle that they will do a better job of protecting America from terrorists. Is this not synonymous with the Bush camp saying that electing Kerry will make attack a greater likelihood?

I operate my own business. One of my marketing tactics is to create fear. This is necessary, healthy fear. My clients are often unaware of certain risks to which they are exposed and in order to capitalize that, I must scare them into believing that they are at risk. Assuming that the work that I do is indeed valuable and countering a genuine risk, then we are both winning in this scenario. They mitigate risks, and I earn a living. But in order to achieve this win-win scenario, I must first scare them into believing there is a danger. I truly believe that they are exposed to risks which they should not be.

But is America at risk from terrorism. I think that it would be ignorant to state that it is not. Only three years ago, that risk came to bear. Regardless of whether the risk is now greater or lesser than what it was at the time, the risk still exists. If it is great enough to require action, then fearmongering (thought I don’t like the negative connotation of that word, either) is certainly a valid tactic.

Those who are at risk may not adequately appreciate the risks they face. They need to be educated about those risks. If either the risk is of high likelihood of causing harm, or, if the risk is perhaps somewhat lower but the degree of harm is very high, then those who are uninformed about the issues must be made to understand them. If this causes them to fear the results of not taking action, then this may be a good thing.

I have nothing against fear. I fear driving my car at 140 miles an hour on a public road, risking my life and the lives of others, so I don’t do it. There are some who do. I don’t consider them either brave or fearless. Just stupid.

10

That was an editorial? What a meandering piece of gobbledygook. I thought the neocons were supposed to be well-educated and eloquent.

Anyway, if that babble is supposed to boil down to: “Americans should not lose their fear of terrorist attacks,” then, umm, OK. He’s right. Unfortunately, we COULD have lost our fear of attack–or at least pushed it off to people whose job is to worry about such things. Most of us don’t worry every day about whether or not more heroin is being smuggled into the country, or that the mafia is consolidating its grip on the construction industry, or a traveler from Africa is unwittingly infected with ebola, or if that new bridge being built is structurally sound and won’t collapse. But the current administration has done jack to increase our safety (ports–still unexamined; borders–still porous; first responder budgets–cut; Bin Laden–still free) while squandering hundreds of billions of dollars (that could have been spent on real homeland security) on a needless military adventure … one whose only demonstrable effect has been to further ruin the infrastructure of a third-world country and to unite the world in hatred of us.

So we could have done with terrorism what we routinely do with countless other dangers, from organized crime to food poisoning to poor engineering: put measures in place to minimize the risks, and let experts worry about it. Instead, we’ve let three years pass without putting enough measures and enough manpower in place, and the money that should have gone to do so has been squandered.

11

WF: *I found it incredible that Krauthammer would portray Richard Feynman as a man with a pessimistic outlook on humanity. *

Well, he really had to twist Feynman’s words to do it: Feynman’s “why are they building things, it’s so useless” comment is described in his autobiography as being part of his postwar reaction to his work on the Manhattan Project. This was a period when he (like many of his co-workers) was appalled at the nuclear destruction he had helped produce; in addition, he was recently widowed, depressed, and unable to accomplish anything with his research.

Feynman ended up getting over this down phase, returning to his research, and taking an interest in the world’s future again. It’s clear not just from his subsequent Nobel-Prize-winning physics research but also his science education and policy work—from reviewing elementary school science textbooks to serving on the committee investigating NASA’s Challenger disaster—that he stopped considering it “useless” to make new things and work for progress.

The thing is, even when there are undeniably good and rational reasons to be concerned about danger, constant fear and worrying don’t lead to better solutions. They lead to depression, misery, and a sort of wretched indifference accompanied by an inability to get things done. Is that really what Krauthammer thinks our country needs more of right now?

12

I used to read Krauthammer regularly, and considered him to be a good example of a rational conservative voice. But during 2004, it almost seems like his columns ought to end with “Paid political adv. – Rep. Natl. Comm.”

Truly, that saddens me.

13

That is my main problem with him. With him (and others) there is a blurring of the line between policy makers and commentators. I don’t have a problem with policy makers publishing thought pieces, as long as they are identified accurately. But when I read a commentary by a supposed editorial journalist, I expect something a little different. I expect an analysis from the outside looking in. I believe it is highly disingenuous for policy makers to identify themselves as other than that, and for editors to allow it.

14

Krauthammer suffers from the same disease as Bush (and evidently a good proportion of the electorate): an inability to distinguish goals from tactics. You develop a goal (ensuring the safety of the American people). You then develop tactics in order to achieve your goal. Bush is big on goals, but stupid and hardheaded on tactics. Fear may be useful in helping us focus on our goal of increasing safety (but is anyone really debating this?). Fear has no place in the development of tactics and will only result in mistakes. And it’s the tactics that are the problem, which is why we should try to reduce the influence of fear, not celebrate it and fan the flames like this fool Krauthammer.

And, it’s been touched on in previous posts, but Feynman described his feelings of hopelessness about the atomic bomb as a temporary phase which soon passed and which he later recognized as unproductive and pointless. There’s a lesson for Krauthammer there should he trouble himself to actually read Feynman’s book.