Fear Becomes A Pervasive Infl uence

We are dealing with a fear factor in today’s politics. Fear is being used to stimulate political responses and actions. Policymakers and politicians are threatened with retribution if they don’t support certain positions. And the citizenry, particularly political and interest groups, are told their rights and liberties are under threat unless certain steps are taken or actions prevented.

Let’s take the case of the National Rifl e Association.

The NRA has a perfectly legitimate right to advocate for its cause, but the organization’s doublebarreled approach defi nitely foments fear.

You might ask what is new or different about the current political climate. Haven’t politicians always been subject to pressure and to threatened retaliation from constituents and interest groups? Indeed, isn’t that the way the system should work - with public oft cials being responsive to citizens’ concerns?

The short answer would be yes.

And hasn’t it long been that way?

The answer again would be yes, but not to the extent we see today.

I thought about this when viewing the decades ofmagazine covers painted by Norman Rockwell for the Saturday Evening Post, currently exhibited at the Crystal Bridges Museum. At first glance, these covers - from the 1920s into the ’60s - can give the impression he was picturing life in an idyllic country of a simpler era.

Yes, but, it was the era of the Great Depression, of World War II, of the Kennedy assassination, of the civil rights struggles.

It was also the era when Franklin D. Roosevelt, in his first inaugural address in 1933, reminded the nation “the only thing we have to fear is fear itself.” With the country mired in economic crisis, FDR brought a positive, can-do approach.

We might do well to heed Roosevelt’s words today.

Instead, the fear factor pervades our politics.

Look at the recent U.S.

Senate vote on expanding background checks for gun purchases. Polls indicated about 90 percent ofAmericans supported the proposal. However, because 60 votes were required to block a filibuster - just to allow the issue to come to a vote - the measure went down. A majority of senators, 54, supported the proposal but that wasn’t enough in today’s unendingly entangled Senate.

So here we see the effectiveness of the NRA’s double-barreled fi repower.

On the one hand, the NRA, which once supported the background checks, tells its members their rights are being threatened. Wayne LaPierre of the NRA had said earlier President Obama,once re-elected, planned “to get busy dismantling and destroying our fi rearms freedom.” The background checks were portrayed as a step toward confi scation of all fi rearms.

Meanwhile, the NRA pressures legislators to oppose any restrictions, and uses the fear of its power and money to help get its way.

The NRA and its allies in the firearms industry have spent nearly $81 million to support or oppose candidates in recent presidential and congressional elections. The NRA said it would “score” votes on the background checks, meaning howsenators are “rated” by the NRA would be aff ected by their votes on the issue.

This atmosphere leads to proposals aimed at a “threat” that even the NRA has dismissed as unwarranted.

A bill has been introduced by two Oklahomans in Congress - the Ammunition Management for More Obtainability Act, or AMMO - based on the premise the Obama administration is trying to dry up the supply of ammunition in the country, buying it all so that Americans will have less access to ammunition.

There’s no evidence to support that claim. If thereis a shortage of ammo, it probably owes in large part to the buying spree among private residents.

This kind of paranoia brings to mind what Richard Hofstadter wrote about the “paranoid style” of American politics nearly 50 years ago - a sense of heated exaggeration, suspiciousness, and conspiratorial fantasy.

What clouds today’s climate even more is the greatly enhanced power of money in politics - much of it channeled into negative advertising and campaigning - and the media provocateurs who thrive on fear-mongering.

However, it is also important to note there were senators, particularly Joe Manchin (Democrat) of West Virginia and Pat Toomey (Republican) of Pennsylvania, who did not bow to NRA pressure, even though they come from states with large numbers of gun owners. It is also fair to point out they won’t face re-election for awhile - Toomey in 2016 and Manchin in 2018.

Sadly, there is a shortage of those in public life and in the media who are willing to stand up to see that the fear factor does not dominate our politics.

HOYT PURVIS IS A JOURNALISM AND INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS PROFESSOR.