COLUMN: The Politics of Fear - Scaremongering to an Election Win

From Darin Smith's "The Balding Of?, Fall '94 It was a poem of joyous anticipation of a new era, not only in the White House, but in the collective soul of the American people. It looked forward to a genuine zeitgeist of kind and gentle sentiment, a resurrection of government of, by, and for all the people. Ms. Angelou had great expectations, and she has been let down. Morning is broken. It's nightfall in America. As evidenced by last Tuesday's election returns, the American people have turned away from the Man from Hope, toward the men of fear. Fear has driven the campaigns in 1994. Fear has established its own platform, its own party line. And fear is winning. Fear singled out Mark Singel as a sissy on crime because he had enough faith in human nature to actually perform his assigned duties on the parole board, and to have opposed the death penalty early in his career, though he no longer does. Fear said that criminals should not be given a second chance. Mark Singel lost his bid for the Pennsylvania governorship. Fear branded longtime New York governor Mario Cuomo a pushover on social issues because, for all his charismatic and inspiring rhetoric during his tenure, the plight of the poor and sick and old and oppressed had not improved. Even with his liberal allocation of public resources, the government was seen as impotent in its attempt to catalyze social change -- a big Hoover vac that sucks up individuals' money to no avail. Mario Cuomo lost his bid for reelection. Fear passed a referendum in California that would deny social services, education, and all but emergency health care to illegal aliens, because the voters of that recession-weary state were disgusted by the idea of their hard-earned dollars being spent to help non-Americans to pursue the American dream. The proponents of the bill are now heading to Texas and Florida to campaign for more majority rule magic in those similarly-burdened states. Fear has returned the Republican party to the majority in both the House and the Senate for the first time since Ike and Mamie graced the Rose Garden. Fear has pumped new life into the just-recently-dismissable NRA lobbies, because people want their semiautomatic weapons readily available to protect their loved ones and loved things. Fear has sponsored a "Contract with America" that would allow people to rest more easily at night with the knowledge that defense spending has been increased. Fear has turned the Bush clan into the equal and opposite reaction force to the Kennedys of old. At this moment in America, there really are many valid reasons to be fearful. Crime is indeed a big problem, both in urban and rural areas, and warrants great attention. The welfare system arguably has perpetuated the lifestyle of dependence for some of its recipients, creating a cycle of resentment between the haves and the have-nots. Fear, however, is a poor foundation for public policy. The sensory experience of fear triggers a "fight or flight" reaction that is instinctual but irrational. Public policy should be based on reason and fact and aimed at the furtherance of the common good, rather than on some subconscious mechanism to protect one's own hide. The California proposition, for instance, was inspired by the fear that American jobs were being taken away and that masses of people were living it up on the average Joe's taxes. It is designed to make the United States a less promising Promised Land, and it may do so, but not enough to make coming here less attractive than staying there. What it could foreseeably accomplish, however, is to create huge problems of homelessness, disease, and crime by denying the services that combat these ills. All of which could cost the taxpayers even more dollars and worry. There are genuine problems in this country, problems that may someday be eradicated, but probably won't. Blaming an ambitious administration for not solving them all, and returning to policies and politics that couldn't solve them two years ago is likely not going to work. The voting public, however, seems to be sending a message to the Clinton camp that says, "Thank you for your time, but we're afraid we're no longer interested in your proactive, hopeful ideology. We won't be needing your services much longer." It is not President Clinton's fault that the hopeful spirit of 1993 has become the cynicism and terror of 1994. His first two years in office have, by objective standards been legislatively productive, moreso than any President in several decades. He simply has not completely restored our faith in government's ability to make everyone's life better -- nothing short of that will be considered a success. Darin Smith is records supervisor at the University's Financial Aid Office and a 1993 graduate of the University. The Balding Of... appears alternate Wednesdays.