The Politics of Fear

by Gabe Schlabach

Franklin D. Roosevelt famously stated at his first inaugural address that “the only thing we have to fear is fear itself.” Yet one of Roosevelt’s first acts at the beginning of U.S. involvement inWorldWar II was to place approximately 110,000 Japanese- Americans into internment camps for the mere “crime” of their Japanese ancestry. Ultimately, though, Americans acknowledged this wrongdoing, and in 1988 (46 years too late) a Democratic Congress and a Republican president united to criticize the internment, citing “race prejudice, war hysteria, and a failure of political leadership.”

During the struggle for civil rights in the United States, politicians who benefitted from segregation repeatedly used racist and irrational fears of African-Americans (who couldn’t vote) to win the support of poor whites (who could), even though their policies undermined the interests of African- Americans and whites alike. Eventually, people of good will from many backgrounds came together to support civil rights for all citizens of the United States.

U.S. history is full of stories such as these, where harmful policies are implemented or sustained by the paralyzing politics of fear. Every U.S. generation has had to face its own fears. Our times are no different.

Sept. 11, 2001 was a day of sadness, rage and fear for many people in the United States (and around the world). The images of planes exploding, skyscrapers collapsing and smoke blanketing the largest city in the United States shocked most U.S. residents, who were not aware of the anger and resentment caused in large part by our foreign policy.

In the aftermath of that terrible day, some people let their fears control their actions, and assaulted Muslims and Arabs (and people, like Sikhs, who looked like they might be). Thankfully, the people committing crimes in fear or retaliation were in the minority.

But many more became paralyzed by their fears and allowed their elected officials to pass dangerous and harmful legislation without opposition.

Amere 44 days after the events of Sept. 11, Congress passed the 342-page-long USA PATRIOTAct. Only 66 representatives and one senator opposed the act, which was rushed through the voting process with little time for debate or amendment. The PATRIOTAct violates many civil liberties U.S. citizens have taken for granted, allowing the government to more easily monitor citizens’ private telephone, email and financial records, often without a warrant. The Act also allows the government to indefinitely detain immigrants suspected of aiding terrorism without formally charging them and without providing evidence of their wrongdoing.

While some parts of the PATRIOTAct have been ruled unconstitutional, other parts have been made stronger and more troubling since 2001. In August 2007, Congress passed the “Protect America Act of 2007,” which allows the Attorney General or the National Director of Intelligence to authorize wiretaps without court orders, as long as one of the parties being monitored is outside the United States. As this article goes to press, Congress is debating whether to once again strengthen this power to wiretap without a warrant, and whether to pardon telecommunications companies that broke the law by handing over phone records (of all their customers) to the government.

Traditionally, government assaults upon civil liberties have disproportionately targeted immigrants and other people of color, as well as well as groups that advocate for peace. There is no evidence that the situation will be different this time.We need to oppose these infringements, now and in the future.

The politics of fear often work in the short term, which is why they have been used repeatedly throughout U.S. history. But history also shows that these tactics are eventually defeated, when people pay attention and challenge their fears.