Doesn't the left use fear too?

[Pangloss]

I think it's interesting that it seems to be the prevailing "conventional wisdom" that the right uses fear more than the left. I've never seen anyone quantify this in any sort of objective way, and yet it's what people seem to think. (Or am I wrong?)

 

Here are a couple of interesting examples from the current news that seem to me to show the left using fear:

 

1) White House attacks anonymous funding sources for Republican candidates in the 2012 mid-term election. (example)

 

2) Potential reduction in the number of women representatives in Congress. (example)

 

Anonymous donations to orgs supporting GOP candidates is reportedly way out of proportion with Dems at the moment, but is that a cause for failure or a reflection of the bases and their present level of motivation? Isn't the present assault just an appeal to vote for Dems?

 

The women thing is particularly galling. Isn't the point of equality that people should vote for the best available candidate, regardless of race or gender? Are we seriously expected to change our votes from one candidate to another just to protect the ratio of women to men in Congress?

 

What do you all think?

[Sisyphus]

Yes, the "left" definitely uses fear too. No, I don't think it's the same. I can't quantify it, but I think that psychologically, liberals and conservatives tend to be more receptive to different types of rhetoric. "We're under attack" rhetoric is, in my opinion, much more effective on and much more favored by conservatives.

[Mr Skeptic]

Well sure, "fear" is part of life and very necessary in pretty much anything we do. For example I am afraid to cross the street without looking, and to be honest I'd think anyone who wasn't profoundly dumb. I think it is more a case of reasonable fears vs unreasonable fears. Fears that Obama is a secret muslim, socialist, wants death panels, illegal as president since not born in US, and what not, are unreasonable fears... and yet, they are a large part of the opposition to Obama, way way more than they deserve to be.

 

So while an argument against crossing the street without looking is also based on fear, it is also based on reasonable facts and argument, so you could likewise say it was based on reason -- whether you call it fear or not. So yes, large contributions by people will necessarily change the laws that get passed -- even without corruption. Quite often without corruption, in fact, because these contributions are given to people who already agree with the donor, rather than an unreliable and illegal attempt to change their mind about something, and also because people do modify their behavior in response to gifts even if not intentionally. It is not just fear, it is also reason. As for the women in congress issue, it does seem like fearmongering... but at least it is based on facts. Of course talking about the reasonableness of fears is probably going to be largely opinion-based for the most part.

 

I think that FUD is the more appropriate term than just fear, for what the Republicans and supporters are doing. Of course FUD is a very useful tool and certainly not unique to Republicans, although I do think they use more than do the Democrats.

[Pangloss]

Yes, the "left" definitely uses fear too. No, I don't think it's the same. I can't quantify it, but I think that psychologically, liberals and conservatives tend to be more receptive to different types of rhetoric. "We're under attack" rhetoric is, in my opinion, much more effective on and much more favored by conservatives.

 

I think that makes sense for the kind of liberals that we have here at SFN, who pride themselves on scientific reason, evidence and objectivity. But I think there are liberals who don't prize those attributes -- people who believe in atheism or environmentalism as a matter of faith, for example. Surely it's logical that such people exist on the left too.

 

And if such are a smaller group, doesn't that just reflect the general trend of the population?

 

So while an argument against crossing the street without looking is also based on fear, it is also based on reasonable facts and argument, so you could likewise say it was based on reason -- whether you call it fear or not. So yes, large contributions by people will necessarily change the laws that get passed -- even without corruption. Quite often without corruption, in fact, because these contributions are given to people who already agree with the donor, rather than an unreliable and illegal attempt to change their mind about something, and also because people do modify their behavior in response to gifts even if not intentionally. It is not just fear, it is also reason. As for the women in congress issue, it does seem like fearmongering... but at least it is based on facts. Of course talking about the reasonableness of fears is probably going to be largely opinion-based for the most part.

 

But not all fear-based arguments, left or right, are illogical or unsupported by evidence. They could simply be supported by very selective evidence, or actually be completely correct and logical and still intend to sow fear (or FUD, as you put it very well). With that in mind, how is the left different from the right? Aren't they both doing the same thing?

 

With regard to the women-in-congress example, it seems to me that the point that it's fact-based doesn't salvage its value on any moral level because it's clearly an attempt to misdirect the voter. If we agree that one's vote should be based on such things as issues and candidate character, then the fact that fewer women will be in congress is not a logical reason to go out and find more women to vote for, right?

 

If seems to me that conservatives do this exact same thing all the time, telling us that something else is more important than whether we vote for a certain candidate in order to distract us from the issues that their opponent supports (for example, New York Gov Carl Paladino telling us that if we elected his opponent, a Democrat who supports gay marriage, that they'll brainwash our children and turn them gay). Surely if it's wrong when the right does this, then it's also wrong when the left does this. (Though that's certainly an example of avoiding facts and logic when sending a fear message, isn't it? Nasty! But my point is that he's attempting to misdirect the voter to a different, larger concern.)

 

 

I think that FUD is the more appropriate term than just fear, for what the Republicans and supporters are doing. Of course FUD is a very useful tool and certainly not unique to Republicans, although I do think they use more than do the Democrats.

 

Interesting.

[padren]

It seems to me that fear dominates the conservative pie chart of rhetoric, to the point that it's almost impossible to find someone on the right proposing a conservative solution instead of just fear mongering about liberal ones. Both ideologies utilize fear but it makes up a much larger portion of the conservative platform, to the point it's almost impossible to tell what else it even runs on sometimes. Liberals also tend to self-police better, whereas it's accepted in conservative circles.

 

I think that's the reason why the right get most of the focus of that accusation.

[swansont]

Foreign election contributions are actually illegal, and a reduction of the number of women in congress is likewise not manufactured. Obama as a Muslim or socialist, or "death panels," etc. are actual lies made up to instill fear.

 

The liberals suck at FUD. It may be because they are less homogeneous, and can't come up with an instance of FUD that energizes the bulk of their constituents all at once. Or maybe they collectively lack a spine and can't go on the attack.

[Pangloss]

The foreign election contributions story actually seems to support my point. The White House touted it as a major story, and news sources picked up on it, but as I understand it fact-checkers have not found any evidence that foreign sources are attempting to influence election outcomes.

 

http://factcheck.org/2010/10/foreign-money-really/

 

New York Times, Oct. 8: [T]here is little evidence that what the chamber does in collecting overseas dues is improper or even unusual, according to both liberal and conservative election-law lawyers and campaign finance documents.

 

In fact, the controversy over the Chamber of Commerce financing may say more about the Washington spin cycle — where an Internet blog posting can be quickly picked up by like-minded groups and become political fodder for the president himself — than it does about the vagaries of campaign finance.

 

-----------

 

Obama as a Muslim or socialist, or "death panels," etc. are actual lies made up to instill fear.

 

I agree. And George Bush cannot logically be accused of "lying" about Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq. (Being wrong, yes, lying, no.)

 

 

a reduction of the number of women in congress is likewise not manufactured

 

It's not manufactured, but isn't it a clear example of misdirection? I agree that lying is wrong, but are you saying the left never lies, or that it does so less frequently? Because I'm not sure why I'm supposed to believe that. If we can find singular examples from both sides, then, regardless of the relative quantity of single examples, don't we need something more substantive to draw the conclusion that the left doesn't lie as much?

[Moontanman]

While i am sure the left uses fear tactics as well i can't remember getting any of those e-mails swearing Obama is a Muslim or that they're trying to take god out of the pledge, or some other fear factor from any one but conservatives and I get them several times a day. They often give you a link to snopes that is supposedly a supporting link but if you go there you find it is not and often snopes does not support the letter at all. It's amazing how many of these things are being passed around as the truth but none so far from liberals...

[Mr Skeptic]

I think that makes sense for the kind of liberals that we have here at SFN, who pride themselves on scientific reason, evidence and objectivity. But I think there are liberals who don't prize those attributes -- people who believe in atheism or environmentalism as a matter of faith, for example. Surely it's logical that such people exist on the left too.

 

And if such are a smaller group, doesn't that just reflect the general trend of the population?

 

It could very well be. If you were to use pandemic models to consider the spread of a political lie, it matters a lot what percentage of individuals is susceptible. Specifically, to be successful there needs to be on average more than 1 re-sending for every 1 recipient. Even a small change in demographics could be the difference between extinction and success. And liberals tend to be more educated and more internet-savvy so should be less susceptible to the lies. Even with plenty of crazies it would be harder to reach critical mass.

 

But not all fear-based arguments, left or right, are illogical or unsupported by evidence. They could simply be supported by very selective evidence, or actually be completely correct and logical and still intend to sow fear (or FUD, as you put it very well). With that in mind, how is the left different from the right? Aren't they both doing the same thing?

 

With regard to the women-in-congress example, it seems to me that the point that it's fact-based doesn't salvage its value on any moral level because it's clearly an attempt to misdirect the voter. If we agree that one's vote should be based on such things as issues and candidate character, then the fact that fewer women will be in congress is not a logical reason to go out and find more women to vote for, right?

 

If seems to me that conservatives do this exact same thing all the time, telling us that something else is more important than whether we vote for a certain candidate in order to distract us from the issues that their opponent supports (for example, New York Gov Carl Paladino telling us that if we elected his opponent, a Democrat who supports gay marriage, that they'll brainwash our children and turn them gay). Surely if it's wrong when the right does this, then it's also wrong when the left does this. (Though that's certainly an example of avoiding facts and logic when sending a fear message, isn't it? Nasty! But my point is that he's attempting to misdirect the voter to a different, larger concern.)

 

That's why I chose the word FUD rather than just fear. FUD needs to be based on dubious or false information, for otherwise it would be valid criticism. Fear is a necessary component of being reasonable, and so accusing someone of a fear-based argument isn't really good criticism. So accusations of fear-based argumentation are a problem for those who use:

1) FUD -- Fear, Uncertainty, & Doubt based on dubious/false information

2) Negative Campaigning -- running on the platform that your opponent really really sucks, rather than on the good of your own platform

 

Of these, the Republicans pretty much own option 1, but option 2 was pretty much enough to ensure a Democrat won in 2008.

 

Negative campaigning makes the most sense to use when there are few candidates, since then it can be used to the most effect. Some degree of negative campaigning is useful and informative, but in the extreme it means no one knows your own platform which would make it a form of misdirection.

[lemur]

My impression is that the ideologies of the left are inherently more fear-laden in that they treat social-political problems as facts of nature that are inevitable and can only be addressed using government protection. The problem is that, although the left is wrong that such problems can't be mitigated without government intervention, in practice they become right when self-governance ends up failing. Now, the question is who is responsible for spreading the ideologies that discourage people from solving their problems through self-governance? Ultimately it is these ideologies, i.e. that individuals are inherently weak and vulnerable, that promote left-type governance strategies; but it would be conspiracy theory to say that it was part of left politics to spread these ideologies just to garner support for left governance, wouldn't it?

[Moontanman]

My impression is that the ideologies of the left are inherently more fear-laden in that they treat social-political problems as facts of nature that are inevitable and can only be addressed using government protection. The problem is that, although the left is wrong that such problems can't be mitigated without government intervention, in practice they become right when self-governance ends up failing. Now, the question is who is responsible for spreading the ideologies that discourage people from solving their problems through self-governance? Ultimately it is these ideologies, i.e. that individuals are inherently weak and vulnerable, that promote left-type governance strategies; but it would be conspiracy theory to say that it was part of left politics to spread these ideologies just to garner support for left governance, wouldn't it?

 

 

Yes, I agree, but the left is far less effective and less direct, I see no equal to, Obama is Muslim and is giving the country over to shia (sp) law, being mass mailed over and over to everyone every damn day...

[lemur]

I think it is also important to realize that republicanism was feared for years in the democrat-dominated south because it was the party of Abraham Lincoln and anti-slavery. At some point the democrat party started losing working class whites who didn't want to support government support programs that that stereotyped as being for poor blacks. So a certain amount of fear and prejudice migrated to the right for that reason, which would explain the Islamophobia and ridiculing Obama for racial reasons such as nationality, etc. You should realize, though, that the republican party started as the party that didn't fear ending slavery, either for economic or racial reasons.

[swansont]

The foreign election contributions story actually seems to support my point. The White House touted it as a major story, and news sources picked up on it, but as I understand it fact-checkers have not found any evidence that foreign sources are attempting to influence election outcomes.

 

http://factcheck.org/2010/10/foreign-money-really/

 

The contention, which is missed by the NYT and others who are covering it, is that money comes in via other avenues than the dues. So saying that collecting dues is not improper avoids addressing the issue. Nobody has actually refuted the claims — they've refuted a strawman.

 

 

 

It's not manufactured, but isn't it a clear example of misdirection? I agree that lying is wrong, but are you saying the left never lies, or that it does so less frequently? Because I'm not sure why I'm supposed to believe that. If we can find singular examples from both sides, then, regardless of the relative quantity of single examples, don't we need something more substantive to draw the conclusion that the left doesn't lie as much?

 

How is it misdirection? If it's important to you, then you worry about it. If not, then the argument isn't going to sway you or get you out to vote. Like I said, as FUD, it sucks. I'm not saying that the left never lies. I'm just saying that these two instances you provided are not clear examples of it.

[lemur]

Yes, I agree, but the left is far less effective and less direct, I see no equal to, Obama is Muslim and is giving the country over to shia (sp) law, being mass mailed over and over to everyone every damn day...

 

my point is that the racism in this kind of fear-tactic, regardless of what party you identify with, is reminiscent of the kind of fear-tactics used in the wake of slave-liberation to drum up fear and support for racism, which has now become nationalism.

[Moontanman]

my point is that the racism in this kind of fear-tactic, regardless of what party you identify with, is reminiscent of the kind of fear-tactics used in the wake of slave-liberation to drum up fear and support for racism, which has now become nationalism.

 

 

And as I pointed out the conservatives seem to operate best at that sort of FUD and do it far more often and nasty. BTW trying to equate republicans as always being conservative by invoking Lincoln is in it's self disingenuous. The party of he conservatives changes places with the part of progressives every few decades and during the time of Lincoln, he was a progressive big time, ending slavery was a progressive stance not a conservative stance...

[lemur]

And as I pointed out the conservatives seem to operate best at that sort of FUD and do it far more often and nasty. BTW trying to equate republicans as always being conservative by invoking Lincoln is in it's self disingenuous. The party of he conservatives changes places with the part of progressives every few decades and during the time of Lincoln, he was a progressive big time, ending slavery was a progressive stance not a conservative stance...

 

Maybe, but the new deal progress of incorporating and creating jobs was highly against the republican ethic of private ownership and self-government. At this point I question how different the corporate job-creation ethic of the democratic party today is from the slave-plantation ethic of the 19th century. I think the republican party is progressive in wanting to move away from centralized governance, whether political or economic.

[Mr Skeptic]

Maybe, but the new deal progress of incorporating and creating jobs was highly against the republican ethic of private ownership and self-government. At this point I question how different the corporate job-creation ethic of the democratic party today is from the slave-plantation ethic of the 19th century. I think the republican party is progressive in wanting to move away from centralized governance, whether political or economic.

 

Not really. The Republicans like Big Government just fine. They just make people think they are against Big Government by repeatedly conflating the Democrats with it, so that people think the Democrats like Big Government and ignore that the Republicans do to. The Republicans like the government to meddle in the private lives of the citizens, forbidding them from smoking pot, having abortions, and various other things based making others conform to their moral values, as well as military so they can meddle with other countries. These are extremely expensive undertakings, currently costing comparable to the Democrat's use of Big Government for social equality (compare the costs of the War on Drugs and War on Terror to the War on Poverty).

 

The ones opposed to excessive government are called Libertarians, and are largely ignored.

[lemur]

Not really. The Republicans like Big Government just fine. They just make people think they are against Big Government by repeatedly conflating the Democrats with it, so that people think the Democrats like Big Government and ignore that the Republicans do to. The Republicans like the government to meddle in the private lives of the citizens, forbidding them from smoking pot, having abortions, and various other things based making others conform to their moral values, as well as military so they can meddle with other countries. These are extremely expensive undertakings, currently costing comparable to the Democrat's use of Big Government for social equality (compare the costs of the War on Drugs and War on Terror to the War on Poverty).

 

The ones opposed to excessive government are called Libertarians, and are largely ignored.

Well, I have also questioned all these moral assertions but I've analyzed them one by one and found that each impinges on individual freedom in its own way. Promoting abortion, for example, promotes liberal sexuality which promotes a prostitution-type approach to sexuality where people use each other sexually as part of economic subjugation. Likewise, drug use (including marijuana) facilitates a way of life where people live in shame and hiding and therefore deference to authority. Finally, the idea that no country should "meddle" with another country is what I would call separatist nationalism which is the same ethic of state-sovereignty that divided people during the time of the civil war, when some people thought slavery should be decided by popular sovereignty at the state level, while Lincoln and the republicans felt that it was not right to allow slavery to expand regardless of how popular it was in a give state.

 

Poverty was my big issue for siding with the left, because I always believed the ideology that the right promoted the gap between rich and poor and the left wanted to remedy it through redistribution. At some point I realized, however, that redistributing money to the poor never helps because the net effect of the poor spending redistributed money is that the corporations get richer from the increase in GDP. So, imo, the best way to decrease the gap between rich and poor is for the rich to save their money instead of spending it. That is the economic culture that Keynes criticized, but it is really a worthwhile social contract if the rich were disciplined enough to stick with it. Basically, there is no redistribution but the rich live a meager life and consume as little as they can in order to preserve the wealth for future generations. Then, the poor accept the rich because they live meekly and consume very little. This would be the best way to address the gap between rich and poor imo. Pretending to fix it through redistribution just increases the gap by increasing corporate profits and driving up inflation and the dependency of the poor on money, which makes them that much more needy to find a source of income, whether it be government-redistribution, crime, or employment.

[Pangloss]

Don't forget guns -- a very popular source of liberal fear-mongering over the years.

 

 

It's amazing how many of these things are being passed around as the truth but none so far from liberals...

 

Even if that's true, is that a reflection on a real problem with conservatism, or a reflection on the larger number of conservatives in the US? If the majority were liberal instead of conservative, wouldn't we see more liberal stupidity and fear-based accusation-making?

 

 

The contention, which is missed by the NYT and others who are covering it, is that money comes in via other avenues than the dues. So saying that collecting dues is not improper avoids addressing the issue. Nobody has actually refuted the claims — they've refuted a strawman.

 

How is it misdirection? If it's important to you, then you worry about it. If not, then the argument isn't going to sway you or get you out to vote. Like I said, as FUD, it sucks. I'm not saying that the left never lies. I'm just saying that these two instances you provided are not clear examples of it.

 

There are few "clear examples" of anything in politics -- one man's corruption is another man's heroic stand against incalculable odds. But it's not that I think you (or the White House) is wrong on this issue, I'm just saying that the timing (three weeks before the election) suggests an attempt to motivate their base through fear. It's an example of misdirection in that they're holding up a sign saying LOOK HERE (not elsewhere).

[Pangloss]

This is the DNC ad everyone's ranting about this week. I like the bit with the woman's purse getting stolen and running around terrified. Scary!

 

 

One thing that's politically interesting about this ad is that it contains a factual statement for which no evidence is offered: "It appears they've even taken secret foreign money to influence our elections." Note the last part of that sentence -- apparently the "influence" question is legally distinct from the money question, and a key cause for concern. Conservative bloggers are calling for a libel suit; liberal ones are asking if the lack of a suit means it's the truth. (chuckle) One blogger compared the ad to McCarthyism.

 

Jake Tapper of ABC News asked David Axelrod, the president's top adviser and the most important figure in the Democratic party, about the ad yesterday, and I thought this exchange was interesting:

 

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2010/10/axelrod-to-us-chamber-what-are-you-hiding-that-you-dont-want-the-american-people-to-see.html

 

TAPPER: But what do you say to people who argue you are demonizing an organization for a charge that nobody knows if it's true or not?

 

AXELROD: Well I’m not demonizing the Chamber of Commerce. I’m simply suggesting to them that they disclose the source of the $75 million that they are spending in campaigns and put to rest, put to rest the questions that have been, that have been raised.

 

It's not believable that David Axelrod didn't know that the DNC was going to produce this ad. If Karl Rove had said something like that following a similar GOP ad, nobody would have believed him. Nobody.

[swansont]

I had not seen the ad until now. Wow. Who borrowed the communal backbone and got it made?

 

All warfare is based on deception. Similarly, all politics is based on fear. The distinction I was trying to draw is instilling fear based on things known to not be true (e.g. death panels), vs. business as usual.

[lemur]

All warfare is based on deception. Similarly, all politics is based on fear.

This is cynical to assume as a rule, but not entirely unfounded. The essence of war is conflicting views regarding boundaries and governance. It can be carried out with as much ethical responsibility as its agents choose to employ in their war activities. Politics based on fear is anti-democratic. Democratic politics is supposed to be based on open dialogue and reason. The fact that various players make politics about winning and domination instead of representation and civil discourse is an abuse of democracy that is ironically made possible by the freedom of speech. Freedom of speech is of course necessary to prevent authoritarian censorship of anti-democratic forms of speech/propaganda, but this does not prevent it from being abused by authoritarian fear-mongers.

Edited October 13, 2010 by lemur

[D H]

I think it's interesting that it seems to be the prevailing "conventional wisdom" that the right uses fear more than the left. I've never seen anyone quantify this in any sort of objective way, and yet it's what people seem to think. (Or am I wrong?)

Two words: Daisy Ad.

One more: Truthers.

 

 

 

[Moontanman]

I agree that the left has probably done the whole FUD thing but I get at least 2 or 3 FUD e-mails a day, average, some days i get several some days none but most days i get a couple at least. I always answer back to the sender (if i know them) and show them a snopes article that shows their wonderful Revelation is actually not true.

 

But so far (years, several) I have never received a Progressive FUD e-mail, but hundreds, at least, of conservative FUD e-mails. I know it's anecdotal but still indicative of the problem and how it's aligned with the conservatives ...

[lemur]

I agree that the left has probably done the whole FUD thing but I get at least 2 or 3 FUD e-mails a day, average, some days i get several some days none but most days i get a couple at least. I always answer back to the sender (if i know them) and show them a snopes article that shows their wonderful Revelation is actually not true.

 

But so far (years, several) I have never received a Progressive FUD e-mail, but hundreds, at least, of conservative FUD e-mails. I know it's anecdotal but still indicative of the problem and how it's aligned with the conservatives ...

 

This seems to have turned into a very similar to discussion as the one whether violence was more prevalent under Muslims or Christians, or among religious or seculars. Why not just make people who operationalize fear for politics their own category whether they identify with the left or the right? Let's face it, fear tactics are ultimately about creating sides and scaring as many people into taking your side as possible, regardless of whether they have rational reasons to do so. So whether it's the left or the right using fear, it doesn't matter for the people who react anyway because they are just taking sides out of fear anyway without necessarily having any reasonable conception of what they're supporting as a result.