Week 3 Readings
In these readings, the focus was on America’s heightened fear of terrorism and terrorism attacks, and the Right-Wing responses to September 11 within a historical context. It was very eye opening to see the citizens’ knee-jerk viewpoints on the War on Terrorism in contrast to the more strictly political viewpoints, as they are more similar than some would think when unpacking both.
Peter Baker’s article in the New York Times was written just before Obama was about to make his last State of the Union speech, discussing what he would probably say about what his administration was planning on doing to continue to protect Americans against the threat of international terrorism. Baker suspected that Obama would not touch on the inflating sense of danger, although he points out that its an important fact to acknowledge. Baker discusses a lot of the same statistics that we discussed in class, repeating the notion that we are much more at risk from things that we encounter every day then of terrorism attacks. He reiterates the idea that by the very definition of what terrorism is, its almost impossible to refute the irrational fear that it invokes. I think that as a leader of our country, it must be very difficult to balance the irrational fears of a nation without completely dismissing them and still attempting to keep the level head that is required of a leader and calming the nation.
In Matthew Lyons’ article, he discusses the distinctions in history that make up four right wing movements, and their specific responses to 9/11. First, Lyons defines the three major ideological currents that stand out in right-wing movements seem to embody, racial nationalism, business nationalism and Cold War nationalism, which are discussed in the four movements.
In the second part of his article, he defines the four different movements within the broad right-wing category. He first discusses neoconservatism, stating that their roots were primarily in the Cold War nationalist ideology. Neoconservatives, like George W. Bush, changed America’s policy from defensive warfare to preemptive warfare in the wake of 9/11. They truly felt that the United States had a duty to spread capitalist democracy, and that it was our duty as a nation to rid the world of terrorism. This idea stems from John O’Sullivan’s Manifest Destiny.
In contrast, the paleoconservatives used business nationalism and an overt racial nationalism as their platform. They did not believe in American exceptionalism, and instead were suspicious of the federal government, advocating that we turn our attention into fixing our government. Paleocons believed that the U.S. courts were corrupt and that the federal government was dishonest. For example, they vehemently opposed the USA PATRIOT act that was enacted post 9/11, thinking that it was a serious threat to civil liberties. That being said, they supported the idea of racial profiling of Middle Easterners, and they wanted an immediate halt to all immigration and to deport all undocumented immigrants.
The third movement that Lyons discusses is the Christian Right movement, who’s fundamentals were grounded in the belief that the United States was a Christian nation. They felt as though the United States was being punished through 9/11 because they had become a nation filled with gays and lesbians, abortion providers, and liberal advocacy groups. They were sort of a middle ground, echoing paleocon ideas about the globalist conspiracy threatening U.S. sovereignty, but also agreed with the neocons about issues of trade and military intervention.
The last movement Lyons discusses is the Far-Right movement, which consisted of two sub-branches, Cryptofascists and the more military groups such as Aryan Nations. A lot of groups, such as the Neo-Nazis, respected the sacrifice, and some even said that they praised the hijackers for aiding in the killing of jews. They felt as though the enemy of their enemy was their friend. That being said, they were divided within their own movement and not all felt that way.
Through both readings, I feel as though we gained a lot of knowledge on how the average citizen feels about the world post 9/11 and how the right-wing feels about post 9/11. I think it would be very interesting to read a similar article on the left ideologies post 9/11 and their responses. It is clear that the viewpoints on terrorism and 9/11 are very starkly defined, both in the citizens’ irrational fears and in the politician’s’ inability to budge and see the other side.
The article by Baker reiterated the difficulty that political leaders have when discussing terrorism. I sympathize with them because no matter what they say, the cannot win. The public wants their fears to be reaffirmed, but like Julia said, there are so many dangers that are more likely to happen than a terrorist attack. Terrorists rely on fear, and they want people to change their daily habits because of fear. I think that political leaders are in a really tricky position because they cannot dismiss the fears that many Americans have, but its also hard to not use rhetoric that elevates panic.
It was really interesting to read about the different movements in the right wing movement. It was eye-opening to read the different views that groups have about 9/11. I think that the Christian Right views and the Far-Right movement were both incredibly alarming to read. It was upsetting to read that there are people who think that 9/11 should have happened, and that it was our punishment for gays and lesbians and liberal advocacy groups. In the same line, I found the Far-Right movements to be really horrible. Sometimes I think that we become dull to the horrors of 9/11. We hear the statistics, but we forget that these are real people whose lives were lost, and whose families were changed forever. Hearing the views of the Far-Right was horrible because these people believed these terrible events should have happened.
I agree with Julia that it would be really interesting to learn about the ideologies of the left, and to contrast them to the ideologies we learned about in this week’s readings.
I agree with you on so much of this! I think politicians should be able to talk to the public just as we talk in this class about cold hard facts, even possibly stating some of the statistics we’ve viewed in class. We look to the president as our leader, and you’d think that the public would trust and be calmed by the president’s and politicians’ viewpoints that terrorism is not as major of a threat as say, a car accident, but it is just not the case. I hope that in the future, we can move a little bit more towards this viewpoint. Also, in terms of the Lyons reading, I agree with you that some of the viewpoints of some of the more radical right groups are alarming, but I also think its interesting because while I feel like a lot of the information that Lyons presents can be alarming, it definitely is presented as merely just information and background on each individual movement.
I thought that the Baker article was particularly interesting, because it highlighted the lose-lose situation that politicians and the President themselves are placed into. Many people would say that the President is answerable to the public, but when the public overwhelmingly demands for something that is irrational, what is the President to do? As Candace said earlier, terrorists rely on fear, so when the general public is made to live in fear, then the terrorists goal is accomplished. It can be hard for the President to refute this though without coming under fire.
The Lyons article about the different types of right wing movements provided a lot of clarity for me. It is so easy to kind of group everyone together based on their similar beliefs, but I think its more instrumental to understand the historical context behind their beliefs and their current iterations. Through this, we can begin to develop some sense of understanding and potentially inch closer towards a consensus. I was able to relate these new understandings to the political climates of today. Lyons wrote that the “apolitical, perpetually prosperous, militarily invincible, and deeply self-absorbed and self-righteous mainstream American culture was, we think, shaken to its foundation by developments over this period” (pg 310). I think that this is really similar to the feelings that those in the right feel today and helps to explain our current political climate.
Again, like Candace’s post, I completely agree with the lose-lose tough situation that the president is in. I think that maybe, dulling the fear by stating these facts might be an option to possibly overcoming the fear that terrorism evokes? but really, like you said, what is the president to do? It has been made clear in our history that politicians won’t win if they take that stance. I also agree that the Lyons article provided a lot of clarity. I did not know a ton about the intricacies of the Right Wing, so it was very eye-opening for me to read all of the different stances. I also agree and like your point that the sooner we can understand all of the arguments, the closer we get into becoming a more cohesive nation that can acknowledge and understand different sides. If we can do that, then maybe we won’t be so polarized and have so much hatred within our government.
I found Lyon’s article to be very informative, as well as interesting. I think something a lot of politicians and some times citizens lack is perspective on other groups/individuals opinions. Whether you agree with their notions or not, trying to understand where another group is coming from can help you formulate a better educated opinion. That being said, I did find it very unnerving to read some of the histories of certain political affiliations. For example, the Christian rightists hold very extreme and offensive views.
Lyons stated, “In the wake of September 11, many Christian rightists declared that the attacks happened because the United States had turned away from God. They pointed to various examples of national immorality, especially abortion, homosexuality, feminism, and the Supreme Court’s ban on prayer in public school.” (page 323) While I do agree it is important to understand others histories (thus the inclusion of this information in the article), I find it incredibly appalling that a group could pin point such mass terror on the groups previously listed with no proof or evidence, other than their belief system.
Your post is very similar to Alexa’s, and I completely agree with the idea that someone should understand where an opposing viewpoint is coming from. I feel like our government is so polarized right now that it would do both sides some good to actually open their eyes and listen to the other side. I also agree with you that reading into some of the histories of the right wing movements were a bit unnerving.
Since the beginning of the semester, we have reiterated how terrorism is not a thing, it is a strategy. It’s strategy is to illicit fear and terror, even if there is no physical threat facing us. We expect our politicians to address terrorism and how we are going to “defeat” it, yet it is likely that because this expectation is often met, we are inducing even more fear and terror. We discuss terrorism to such a heightened level, that we are, in fact, losing this rhetorical “war on terror.” If our politicians discuss terrorism too much, we criticize them for playing into the fear, but when they do not talk about it enough, we criticize them for ignoring our most imminent danger. We, as the audience, lose either way, and so do our politicians.
Similar to Julia and a few other students in the comments above, understanding the historical context behind a few separate groups of the far-right winged was very eye-opening, but also disheartening for me. Fears, prejudices, and beliefs do not develop from nothing, nor are we born with them—our environment fosters our perspective and those influences are sometimes harsh, like those explained by Lyons. After reading this, I couldn’t help but feel frustrated with the persistent American “unity” that politicians especially preach to the audience. The reality is is that our nation is divided, fractured, and feuding and because of the deeply historical reasons behind this, I believe we will likely never achieve unity.
I completely agree with your idea that continuing to address terrorism almost highlights it and makes it seem like it’s more of a threat then it really is. I think that it’s so interesting that we’ve adopted this mentality into essentially blaming our politicians for a lot, but then we also play into a lot of what the politicians say and do since this is a democracy. I also completely agree with your point that environment plays a lot into prejudices, fears, and beliefs, and it really is disheartening to think that there is a place for all that hatred to be authorized.
I agree with Julia’s comment about the difficulty of balancing the fears of the American public with the role of rational and calm leader and was thinking about that a lot during our readings for the week. The combination of the difficulty of this role and the media’s enormous power to influence public perception on issues such as terrorism creates a heightened pressure on the president’s terrorism rhetoric. The New York Times article demonstrates how Obama’s attempt to do this was often unsuccessful because even when he was making accurate comments about the level of severity of the threat he came across as condescending or out of touch with reality. Providing more of a realistic perspective caused him to be viewed much more negatively by the American public. This is an aspect of terrorism I have not really thought about before but plays a huge role in how we as American citizens live our lives on a daily basis. The Baker article also discusses the concept of society’s inclination towards being irrational and how the government has to accept it rather than fight it which poses a recurring issue for the nation’s leaders. This made me wonder about how the current administration has differed from Obama in this area, specifically how and if Trump has acknowledged the need for this balance and if his rhetoric about terrorism has potentially created more irrational fears than before. I think reading an article similar to the Baker one with the analysis focused on the current administration would be very interesting.
I think its so ironic that the president providing a realistic perspective of terrorism caused him to be viewed negatively when we look to our president to be a rational, calm, human being. That being said, I think we’ve seen with Trump’s administration the complete opposite. We’ve seen what an emotional uprising Trump can ensue with rhetoric that might be a little less realistic, and how effective that unrealistic rhetoric can be. I think it’s eye-opening how Trump’s words can play out in his supporters, how what he says authorizes the actions that then ensue, and I think it’s important to learn how important our president’s words are to the public.
As Julia points out we’ve touched on the overinflation of fear surrounding terrorism that Baker’s article discusses before in class. The statistics outlining the true likelihoods of death by terrorism were brought up in other readings such as Horgan’s “Did the US Overract to 9/11” and Waldman’s “Terrorism Truths No Politician Will Admit.” What’s really interesting to me is that these facts and realities seem to be constantly discussed in articles and made well known to politicians. I feel as though the government has a responsibility to talk honestly and openly about terrorism to the public and try to enact change in the way society thinks about it. I think the lack of these honest conversations is a huge part of the reason for stereotyping terrorism and the stigma around muslim citizens. We jump to blaming one group as a whole and creating a common enemy instead of looking at the realities and facts behind terrorism and it has created a warped sense of fear and judgement in our culture today.
Baker also lifts the veil on the public vs. private side of politicians. The truth of the matter is that politicians can have different personal opinions than those they voice publicly. Obama understands this overreaction to 9/11 but won’t speak on the matter in effort to not be seen as “weak on terrorists.” Politicians take the party line when discussing the subject and suppress their own opinions. This stifles open dialogue, and ignores the actual facts of the matter leading to the continuation of uncertainty and ignorance about terrorism.
I completely agree that the government should be able to talk candidly about terrorism, and as a society we should be receptive to the things that the politicians say. I completely agree with you that this overexposure to terrorism plays into the stereotypes of a brown person terrorist. In politicians’ rhetoric, there is a lot of “Us vs. Them” “Good guys vs. the enemy” rhetoric, which reinforces the stereotypes that the enemy and the culprit of terrorism is this overseas brown person in a turban. Hopefully, we can move to a more open, realistic dialogue between the public and politicians, because that’s how our government is promoted.
In Baker’s article, Balancing Terror and Reality in a State of the Union Address, reiterates the ongoing on issue of fear and terrorism in the United States. Obama suggests through his speech that him and his administration want to protect Americans from the threat of international terrorism but also states that terrorist attacks are inevitable and Americans may have to learn to adapt how to deal with those occurrences. As Julia points out in her post, as a leader of the country, it’s hard being able to balance these feelings of fear that Americans reflect, and at the time same make level headed decisions that will benefit the country from preventing terrorism and terrorist attacks. I believe Obama was able to make decisions through his presidency based on what he believed was the best choice at the time regarding the United States and terrorism.
After reading Matthew Lyons’ article, I learned a lot about the different types of nationalism through the three major ideological currents he embedded in response to post 9/11. As Julia had also stated in her blog post, the USA patriotic act was an example that showed how paleoconservatives used overt racial nationalism as their platform. They used the USA patriotic act as leverage to show the extremities the act ruled in relation to immigration and racial profiling in the United States. Through Lyons’ reading, it was very interesting to see how nationalism is embraced throughout the United States in so many different ways and how it can create movements in result.
I’m curious to see what you think of Trump and how he’s handled the tackling the idea of terrorism. I think that it would be interesting to compare the accuracy of Obama’s statements with how the public reacted and the accuracy of Trump’s statements on terrorism and the public reacted. I also agree that Lyons was very organized in how he outlined his reading, first discussing the three types of nationalism and then outlining the four movements.
After reading Baker’s article, it seems that that one of the main problems here is lack of justice. Families who have fallen victim to terrorism are left with the loss of a loved one with no real reasonable explanation behind the death of their child, sibling, parent, etc. The only justice they can even begin to gain is through the actions of our government, and those families turn to them in the hopes that they will somehow find solace through whatever course of action is taken. The problem arises when we expect to be able to counter those evil acts and the fear that we feel, but because these acts stem from irrational hatered it is difficult to combat these attacks with the same proportions. We can see through the readings that when our government cannot give us justice, they instead give us that illusion as best as they can. And this is where we see politicians begin to rely more on public opinion than on their conscience, because when they look at the facts rather than respond to the emotions of their citizens, they are criticized and questioned. Obama was arguably rational in his approach, but by choosing not to do everything in his power to eradicate terror he was seen as weak and unfavorable. We are choosing not to try to understand what is happening, but to act on solely on our emotions and protective instincts. It seems the inhumaneness of the attacks is what frightens us because it brings our worst fears to life, and unfortunately we are too used to never having our fears realized, when in reality, we are almost spoiled in this regard. We are removed, we are privileged, and we are safe from war and violence. Americans cannot accept that there is no way to stop it, and so we try to reciprocate this fear. We invade them and control them and cause seventeen years worth of innocent deaths in response to one catastrophe. I was, as many other people in the class were, horrified that some Americans had the responses they did to 9/11 as described in Lyons’ article. It is so disheartening to hear that someone could support those terrible acts just because their discriminatory thinking aligns with that of the terrorists. Hatred on their side is just as motivating a factor as fear is on our side, and although it is not the American way and seemingly improbable, maybe it would be more productive to undermine their hate rather than provoke it and incite more reasons to be fearful.
I really like your viewpoint on the public’s response to terrorism as we haven’t really discussed the families affected as much in class, and I think it’s an important viewpoint to understand. When people are dealing with that much grief, I think it is common for them to look for an outlet to their grief, and it is also very logical that that would be towards our government. I really like your comments on how strong emotions can make us act somewhat irrationally.