The Republican candidate debate on CNN last night gives us plenty to comment on, which I will do over the next few days. Today I am going to address American fear. The theme of the debate was fear, and candidate after candidate assured us that the first priority of a president was to be Commander in Chief and to keep Americans safe. Safe. Safe.
(First a quick aside. There will be lots of other stuff to consider over the next few days, and I will get to this, soon.
A study of Donald Trump on split-screen. Wow.
A genuine policy debate between Rand Paul and the engagement-hawks (Rubio-Carson-Graham-Christie) on whether American involvement in regime change does more good or bad and whether America shooting down Russian planes while they are helping us fight ISIS (Christie) is a sound projection of American strength and resolve or dangerous madness (Paul).
A genuine policy debate on whether supporting a genuine bad guy (Assad, in Syria) is a necessary evil worth doing temporarily to re-establish state control in Syria, or a very bad idea propping up a dictator who has no chance whatever of legitimacy in his country.
And more. I will get to it.)
But first about fear and keeping America safe. I realize that the data I am going to present here is irrelevant. The number of people killed by Muslim terrorists is irrelevant to the fear; I get it. What is important to think about is not the data but why the data is irrelevant.
In calendar year 2014 and so far in 2015 there were the following incidents of radical Islamic terror in America
Thirty four Americans have died in the past wo years, in 12 incidents, about 17 per year. A little over one a month.
That's it. From an actuarial or public health perspective the number is essentially zero. This is a big country and very rare bad things happen.
Terrorist attacks like the one in San Bernardino is one such incident. But the actuarial risk isn't relevant. What is important is the fear it generates--a great deal of fear.
The Muslim terror headcount includes famous incidents that are top of mind to voters: the Boston Marathon bombing (3 deaths, many more injured), the Chattanooga recruitment center shooting (5), the San Bernardino shooting last week (14).
There are about 30,000 car fatalities per year, or 82 per day. Nearly everybody uses a car from time to time. Everybody eats: there are 850 choking deaths a year, with hot dogs being a special hazard, just the right size to get stuck. Choking causes 50 times as many deaths as radical Islam terrorists.
About 58 people per year die from stings by insect stings. That's right. Bees and yellow jackets kill four times as many people every year as Muslim terrorists.
But I note these facts NOT to make the point that Muslim terror in America is not that big a deal. Rather, I cite them to make a nearly-opposite point: that ideological terror is uniquely frightening because it creates nonstop news, 24-7. And there is a great potential terror in radical Islamic terror incidents due to the unquantifiable potential of more. It could "go viral."
San Bernardino could be the tip of the iceberg There can be copycats. One killer can inspire another. An idea can spread and something which didn't exist--or barely exists--can become accepted, then popular, then a craze. Think Cabbage Patch dolls. Or Harry Potter. Or smart phones. Or Ebola.
Infections can spread. Ideas and ideologies can spread.
Ebola-fear went viral in America even though ebola itself was limited to 2 healthcare workers. The news media reflected the fear and amplified it in a feedback loop. And feedback loops are the scary potential of viral infections, chain reactions, ebola and radical Islamic terror. You choke one hot dog at a time, independent tragic deaths, and there is no global conspiracy of bees. But ebola and Islamic terror can go viral.
The Republican debate last night showed main stage candidates saying we were "at war", and condemning "radical Islam". They were using words of state vs. state conflict. America versus Nazi Germany. War. As Rubio put it in his Struggle of Civilizations TV ad, it was we against them, one winner, our freedom and values against theirs. This frame of the issue perfectly suits the fear people have: Radical Islamic terrorists might be anywhere and they are out to get us.
But the hazard isn't a war of civilizations, state versus state. The hazard is infection. One person last night addressed this. Lindsey Graham. In the minor-debate of low-polling candidates he kept pleading with the other candidates to make distinctions, to condemn the "radical" and embrace "the Islam," saying Muslims included courageous American soldiers, necessary allies in Jordan and Turkey and among the Kurds. We need to provide an attractive reliable alternative to the ISIS infection, he said.
On the main stage the eight candidates from time to time hinted at the distinction, condemning "radical", and implying that it was a surgical distinction. But it was a subordinate clause in a message that was the opposite, submerged in a tidal wave of opinion in the contrary direction, suspicious of Muslims.
Trump doubled down, saying that we cannot tell the difference between the good ones and the bad ones. Keep them all out--its only common sense. The strongest non-Trump candidates echoed Trump, endorsing the same result, but for a different reason. They parsed it by saying that we might only reject outright all Muslims from countries where ISIS is present. (India OK, Syria no.) Maybe a Muslim ban does make sense, they said, but only temporarily--which is now Trump's position. Assume they are all terrorists until the FBI can assure us of 100% safety, Christie said. Cruz and Rubio and Christie and Fiorina all note that government is generally ineffective, so case by case review is impractical and will miss terrorists, so it is best to exclude every Muslim. But Christians are safe, so admit them. It isn't a matter of outright prejudice, they say, only the practical problems of investigation.
So Trump is broad brush and the non-Trumps have specific concerns. But the big message was the same. Be fearful, be very fearful, they say, and as Commander and Chief I will keep you safe from Islam, a religion gone bad.
I consider it Trump-lite. Or Trump-in-code. Or Trumpish. Same big result, but for different reasons. And it works. They seem more "presidential" than Trump, more appealing to white collar Republicans.
But if the hazard is one of infection, of Muslim terror going viral or of an enemy getting hands on a nuclear weapon, then the correct way to address the problem is to reduce the chance of the ideology spreading. Lindsey Graham, polling at zero, was the spokesman to that: we need friends, he said. Having Muslim friends isn't an expression of weakness, it is the route to security. We cannot be hiding from Muslims; we need to engage with them.
He repeatedly asserted that based on his multiple trips to the Middle East the overwhelming majority of Muslims are horrified by radical Islam and are the primary victims of it. Parents do not want their children radicalized, quite the opposite. They want and need us as friends and America needs to step up and be a friend by sending troops there and by rejecting outright the Trump frame of the problem.
He spoke prior to the main stage candidates, but they paid attention to the vast body of voters not to Graham.
Lindsey Graham addressed the source of legitimate fear: infection. He polls at zero.
Thirty four Americans have died in the past wo years, in 12 incidents, about 17 per year. A little over one a month.
That's it. From an actuarial or public health perspective the number is essentially zero. This is a big country and very rare bad things happen.
Terrorist attacks like the one in San Bernardino is one such incident. But the actuarial risk isn't relevant. What is important is the fear it generates--a great deal of fear.
The Muslim terror headcount includes famous incidents that are top of mind to voters: the Boston Marathon bombing (3 deaths, many more injured), the Chattanooga recruitment center shooting (5), the San Bernardino shooting last week (14).
There are about 30,000 car fatalities per year, or 82 per day. Nearly everybody uses a car from time to time. Everybody eats: there are 850 choking deaths a year, with hot dogs being a special hazard, just the right size to get stuck. Choking causes 50 times as many deaths as radical Islam terrorists.
About 58 people per year die from stings by insect stings. That's right. Bees and yellow jackets kill four times as many people every year as Muslim terrorists.
But I note these facts NOT to make the point that Muslim terror in America is not that big a deal. Rather, I cite them to make a nearly-opposite point: that ideological terror is uniquely frightening because it creates nonstop news, 24-7. And there is a great potential terror in radical Islamic terror incidents due to the unquantifiable potential of more. It could "go viral."
San Bernardino could be the tip of the iceberg There can be copycats. One killer can inspire another. An idea can spread and something which didn't exist--or barely exists--can become accepted, then popular, then a craze. Think Cabbage Patch dolls. Or Harry Potter. Or smart phones. Or Ebola.
Infections can spread. Ideas and ideologies can spread.
Ebola-fear went viral in America even though ebola itself was limited to 2 healthcare workers. The news media reflected the fear and amplified it in a feedback loop. And feedback loops are the scary potential of viral infections, chain reactions, ebola and radical Islamic terror. You choke one hot dog at a time, independent tragic deaths, and there is no global conspiracy of bees. But ebola and Islamic terror can go viral.
The Republican debate last night showed main stage candidates saying we were "at war", and condemning "radical Islam". They were using words of state vs. state conflict. America versus Nazi Germany. War. As Rubio put it in his Struggle of Civilizations TV ad, it was we against them, one winner, our freedom and values against theirs. This frame of the issue perfectly suits the fear people have: Radical Islamic terrorists might be anywhere and they are out to get us.
But the hazard isn't a war of civilizations, state versus state. The hazard is infection. One person last night addressed this. Lindsey Graham. In the minor-debate of low-polling candidates he kept pleading with the other candidates to make distinctions, to condemn the "radical" and embrace "the Islam," saying Muslims included courageous American soldiers, necessary allies in Jordan and Turkey and among the Kurds. We need to provide an attractive reliable alternative to the ISIS infection, he said.
On the main stage the eight candidates from time to time hinted at the distinction, condemning "radical", and implying that it was a surgical distinction. But it was a subordinate clause in a message that was the opposite, submerged in a tidal wave of opinion in the contrary direction, suspicious of Muslims.
Trump doubled down, saying that we cannot tell the difference between the good ones and the bad ones. Keep them all out--its only common sense. The strongest non-Trump candidates echoed Trump, endorsing the same result, but for a different reason. They parsed it by saying that we might only reject outright all Muslims from countries where ISIS is present. (India OK, Syria no.) Maybe a Muslim ban does make sense, they said, but only temporarily--which is now Trump's position. Assume they are all terrorists until the FBI can assure us of 100% safety, Christie said. Cruz and Rubio and Christie and Fiorina all note that government is generally ineffective, so case by case review is impractical and will miss terrorists, so it is best to exclude every Muslim. But Christians are safe, so admit them. It isn't a matter of outright prejudice, they say, only the practical problems of investigation.
So Trump is broad brush and the non-Trumps have specific concerns. But the big message was the same. Be fearful, be very fearful, they say, and as Commander and Chief I will keep you safe from Islam, a religion gone bad.
I consider it Trump-lite. Or Trump-in-code. Or Trumpish. Same big result, but for different reasons. And it works. They seem more "presidential" than Trump, more appealing to white collar Republicans.
But if the hazard is one of infection, of Muslim terror going viral or of an enemy getting hands on a nuclear weapon, then the correct way to address the problem is to reduce the chance of the ideology spreading. Lindsey Graham, polling at zero, was the spokesman to that: we need friends, he said. Having Muslim friends isn't an expression of weakness, it is the route to security. We cannot be hiding from Muslims; we need to engage with them.
He repeatedly asserted that based on his multiple trips to the Middle East the overwhelming majority of Muslims are horrified by radical Islam and are the primary victims of it. Parents do not want their children radicalized, quite the opposite. They want and need us as friends and America needs to step up and be a friend by sending troops there and by rejecting outright the Trump frame of the problem.
He spoke prior to the main stage candidates, but they paid attention to the vast body of voters not to Graham.
Lindsey Graham addressed the source of legitimate fear: infection. He polls at zero.
3 comments:
Peter, I am interested in your take on this fear issue really being pushed to focus attention of the voter away from more important issues?
The R's seem to want a daddy or someone to articulate their fear/anger, not a voice of reason, go figure
Chris, for many Americans, the fear issue IS the important issue. The candidates are, if anything, excellent gages of what the audiences they stand in front of are thinking. Candidates are applause machines, seeking out whatever gets the right response. B F Skinner would be delighted at this real life experiment, the candidate test animal getting rewarded for certain tones and certain words. Fear is out there. My liberal friends underestimate this reality, therefore are slow to "get it".
Post a Comment