Just what is fear mongering?

Question

I know what it is, I think. It's taking advantage of a threat, whether soundly believed or not, for personal or party gain by exploiting said threat.

But I have two questions as it relates to George Bush and his alleged fear mongering. 1. When claiming this about him, is it the intent to imply the dangers he mentions are exaggerated, illegitimate, of low probability?

2. If you're claiming that he's doing this for that reason, but don't present an argument to support your implication, why isn't your claim also propaganda?

I know I could be attacked as being naive, or have some idiot call me a Republican hack, but I think my questions are valid.

Your answer is a period?

soulsearcher, many coincidences are compelling, but not proof, least not that a specific warning is false, nor that all warnings shall be.

Enterrador, you gave an analogy and explained one of the bases for thinking Bush is fear mongering. As for the, "my party can better protect you" mantra, true, that is a form of fear mongering, yet I must admit that my primary interest is in determining how legitimately those that claim Bush is using fear see the dangers he and others mention.

I watched Bush, too. I thought he was sincere and fairly articulate, but I also think he strawmanned his opponents' positions. I wish he was more engaged. When he's not, he tends to argue with a lot of misconception.

Screaming Eagle, I may someday, but I don't respect Moore. It's not because of his politics. I don't know if you will believe this, but I'm actually pretty liberal; I'm anti Iraq war and am fine with gay marriage and most of the other causes liberals support, but I'm also about being fair, honest, and other populist sounding things. I saw Moore interviewed on a program about corporations. He strongly implied, in my opinion, that because many in Columbine work for Lockheed Martin, according to him, a creator of "weapons of mass destruction" they would be less inclined to be responsible with their kids and how they interact with guns, if at all. He basically alluded to the idea that these parents are condoning of one tool that can be used for violence because of their involvement in the creation of another. I think that opinion is very disrespectful, and I cannot respect Moore.

I believe Canada has a more restrictive right, and a much lower population, but to say that the cultures, Canada's and The US's are different, is true.

Answer 1

Hmm, a multi-part question. And one worth thinking about.
I agree with your definition of fear-mongering with one addition: to distract from other issues. If you can accept that, let's continue.

1. No, the dangers are not necessarily any of these, but the probability is high that they are all three. Think back to the discovery of anthrax and to the green/amber/red threat levels. For a time the nation was in a swivet because evidence of anthrax had been discovered in a couple of locations. Whole buildings were evacuated and sealed off. Remember the terrorist color alert? Cheney had us out buying duct tape and plastic and sealing ourselves into veritable tombs. I'm sure you can think of more instances along these lines. The result? We are simultaneously frightened and reassured that our government is watching out for us and protecting us from evil. The party gains credibility.

2. Other "sky is falling" issues have grabbed headlines recently. Bird flu. Spinal meningitis. Climate change. Peak oil. North Korea. Iran. Mad cow disease. Terrorist threats. E. coli. West Nile virus. I don't mean to dismiss any of these as real problems, because they certainly should concern us. But the danger is overplayed, with two results: general anxiety...and distraction from more immediate and long-term issues like lack of health care, the ballooning deficit, and the ongoing loss of life and expense of the war in Iraq. To use a concrete example: I'm unlikely to catch bird flu or even E. coli...but I am currently caught in the health care crunch, and the war and the deficit are hurting me in the wallet. These are issues that impact every single one of us, but that the Administration is unwilling to face.

So...use low-probability panic to distract the public from genuine fears.

Answer 2

You can claim my statement as propagande, or as you see fit. I will give you an example. Do you remember the movie "The Village"? In this particular movie, the town elders would tell all those living in the village not to venture to the woods for the fear of "Those we not speak of". No one questioned the integrity of them, no one had really ever seen one, but the words of the leaders with a prospect for fear kept the village under their control. The terrorist threat is real, as it has been since the beginning of life for humans are terrorists. Anything done to inflict fear into others constitutes as an act of terror does it not. In the events of 9/11, there was a lot of confussion and the word "terrorist" was uttered, since then, anytime the country begins to question the integrity of the President and his Cabinet, this "terorist" word is uttered as a protective measure. It is not that the threat is not real, it is the fact that it is being used to insight fear into Americans and become less dissentful of the Governtment.

Answer 3

there are a number of suggestion on a thank you to brush aside a controversy without addressing it. Acusations of racism, concern-mongering, hate, anti-semitism, and so on attack the speaker, no longer the argument. And, specific, pushing aside a controversy by way of labeling it propaganda or socialism or conspiracy concept or despite the fact that isn't an entire critique... despite the fact that if, some arguments frankly do no longer advantage an entire critique. whilst somebody re-hashes a failed argument, merely calling it what that's may be all you have the ability to do.

Answer 4

I would recommend seeing "Bowling for Columbine".

This "Michael Moore" documentary implies that Clinton's missle attacks coincided with the Columbine Massacre and discusses how even though Canada is the right to bear arms just like the USA, the murder rate is far lower. Implying that the difference might be because of the "Fear" in the USA.

Answer 5

i watched President Bush on the O'Reilly factor last night and I believe he is a sincere and honest man. Too many people in this country have forgotten 9/11 or they think we deserved it. I thank God that GW is president instead of gore.

Answer 6

Thank you for asking such a fine question and then going on to answer it with more fine questions. Fear mongering is used by both sides and it is very difficult to tell just what is real and what isn't. In the case of Pres. Bush, I feel he very much has the safety of the US at heart and uses this to inspire people to do something more than wait. In the case of others, they are using to perpetuate hate of Pres. Bush.

Answer 7

Very good observations. Of course it ISN'T fear mongering when these same people call Bush the biggest threat to peace in the world.

Answer 8

Think "Orange Alert", new sudden "threats" just when an unfavorable stoy about him breaks ect ect, all the proof you sould need is in the news and on the web if you hunt for it.

Answer 9

Your questions are valid but are also, unfortunately, for the Weak Sisters on this "forum", way too complicated for them to answer with anything other than the usual drivel.

I've about given up asking serious questions on this "forum".

Answer 10

You exercise sound logic.
More political critics, pro or con someone or some issue, should apply as solid a logic as you have here.