Fear Factory Of The Conservative Western World example essay topic

A Dichotomous Ultimatum In many ways the events of 9/11 have been used to justify, rectify, exemplify, but mostly catalyze the ongoing pro-active war on terrorism. The three-thousand people that have died with the fall of the Twin Towers continue to serve as the biggest example of martyrs for the U.S. -led ongoing campaign to restructure the world of foreign politics. Elite Americans are taking the rest of the world for a ride. Anti-terrorism leaves the rest of the Western thinking world with one of two options.

It can either get with the program or get left behind. The dichotomous ultimatum that the United States has delivered to the world in the name of anti-terrorism has had quite an impact on neighboring Canadians. The debate over this war affects even those who try and stray form it and its systemic propaganda. Though varying in degree of importance, it has become a relevant issue for all individuals in the Western world whose morals surrounding it are challenged by the ever growing, soul mongering fear factory of the conservative Western world.

Fear Driven: The Nature of the War on Terror This paper argues that the underlying source and motive accounting for the beliefs in anti-terrorist conservatism is fear. Firstly, the nature of the so-called 'war on terror' is none other than fear. Secondly, Conservatives in Canada, all the while aiding the cultivation of fear, in many instances are admitting they are afraid. They are simultaneously afraid and insecure of their own conceptions morals and values. Finally, I will briefly assess the responsibilities and consequences of this 'fear campaign' in regards to conservative action. Within the National Post which arguably presents a fair amount of unbiased reporting, conservatives are nevertheless exposed in their most frantic dispositions.

Pre-emption and Prejudice First, the abstract concept of a 'war on terror' takes the classic "just cause" for war as being: "defense against aggression under way". However, it is fair to argue that there is a fine line between empirically distinguishable aggression and speculation of aggression based on history and prejudice about certain states. In his article debating the morality for the justification of pre-emption against terrorist threats like Iraq with armed forces, George Weigel attempts to justify the fearful assumption that Iraq is a threat. He says, "The nature of the regime, the crucial factor in this part of the moral analysis, makes that plain". But the concept of "nature" which is defined solely on evidence from the past makes prejudice a case for war that is ultimately grounded in fear and notably, insecurity. The speculative and frantic rhetoric of pre-emption against Iraq by Weigel remains a question of ethics.

He speculates that "there are instances when it is not only right to "go first" but "going first" 'may' be morally obligatory". He follows by fearing that "Iraq 'may' well pose one of those instances". With the use of words like 'may' it sounds like the resolve for pre-emption is quite uncertain yet the war is somehow being justified. Janice Gross Stein observes that, "Judgments about character are the new criteria for pre-emptive military attack". The justification for pre-emption, "that denotes a first strike which is legitimate only because it is necessary for the sake of self-defense" is the new paranoid answer to dealing with an unconventional war. Clifford Orwin acknowledges that, "The conventional means of warding off harm among nations was through the practice of deterrence.

September 11, however, signaled a colossal failure of deterrence. Neither al- Qaeda nor its then-state sponsor the Taliban had proved amenable to it. This is a problem with terrorism generally. What with the murkiness of the struggle... ".

Accordingly, in order to legitimize the pre-emption policy, a tangible enemy must materialize in order to propagandize against. Cultivating fear becomes a way of advancing and legitimizing prejudices. However fear, though compelling, does not amount to tangible and credible substance justifiable to the U.S. pre-emption policy. Stein notes the new national security strategy of the U.S. as being quite fearful. "The new national security strategy of the United States bundles terrorists, tyrants, and technology together and ties them neatly in a package with a strategy of pre-emption. Terrorists who can strike with little or no advance warning, tyrants who can share advanced technology with terrorists and weapons of mass destruction are the principal threats to the safety of the United States".

The "potential of danger", also discussed by Alan Dershowitz, becomes enough to justify aggressive military action in the manner of pre-emption but in the same respect, shouldn't this policy apply to anyone that has the potential to do harm, namely everyone? In the Eyes of the Beholder: Frantic Conservatives As discussed above, the justification for taking action against Iraq and other supposed terrorist activity is based in part on past behavior, but bad behavior, as known, is often in the eyes of the beholder. In this instance the scared conservatives'. Pairing prejudices with fear does not exactly provide concrete proof to justify striking first and calling it self-defense. It is an oxymoron, a contradiction within itself.

The conservatives who cherish these values deserve to be questioned. The fifth filter of Chomsky and Herman's propaganda model, anti-communism, is a good starting point to expose conservatives wherein communism, the previous conceptual sworn enemy of the United States and Western ideology, can be now easily substituted by the concept of terrorism. Actually, Herman and Chomsky would call anti-terrorism the dominant religion of the West. And given this context in which to bare thought, it is not to be forgotten that religion ultimately ties mysticism in its endeavors to justify being. Chomsky and Herman write, "This ideology helps mobilize the populace against an enemy, and because the concept is fuzzy it can be used against anybody advocating policies that threaten" the doctrine of anti-terrorism. As to characterize conservatives, they become those observably afraid of being accused of refuting the instated anti-terrorist religion they help to cultivate.

As they are doing there best to pledge allegiance to the "good" and "right" side of the dichotomous struggle, they are at the same time admitting their fears and insecurities. Canadian Conservatives: Along for the Ride In Canada, right-wing thinkers love to criticize left-wing thinkers about their indecisiveness on the relatively questionable nature of the campaign against terrorism discussed above. There are instances published in the National Post where accusations resound like the loaded irrational jabber of scared conservatives. In this following example, a conservative, Glenn Woiceshyn, attempts to antagonize leftists by making sarcastic remarks about their morals and values but while doing so, ultimately reveals all that he is afraid of. He also reveals his insecurity by the simple fact that he takes a stab at justifying his point of view by faithfully alluding to anti-terrorism.

He writes that, "Leftist "anti-war" protesters demonstrates once again that today's leftists are not against dictatorship, poverty, brutality, mass slaughter of innocent people, or weapons of mass destruction in the hands of maniacal killers. What these leftists fear most is America winning a just war". This statement sounds like that of a paranoid conservative who needs to give himself reason to believe he is thinking properly because he truly believes mere prejudice won't suffice. One should acknowledge that often when there is an attempt to justify something it is because there are traces of doubt therein. In another case, brain-washed conservative Andrew Coyne, who made it his task to rebut twelve cases for Canada's indecision about going to war with Iraq in "record time", neglects to rationally consider any consequences for taking action, placing his entire beliefs in the hands of conservatism and the ongoing propaganda. He then tries to cover-up his insecurity.

He writes, "Anyone can come up with a list of disasters that might conceivably arise, from any action. But until you attach some probability to these, they are of little guidance". He then goes on to say, "It remains possible it could all go horribly wrong". In this last part where he contradicts himself, it is fair to say he is insecure about his propagandized position and tries to cover himself by frantically mentioning the possibility of everything falling apart. Furthermore, the probability of disasters arising from engaging in war does have historical probability. In this light, it seems he doesn't want to assume any responsibility for his beliefs.

Maybe he is afraid to admit to himself that the nature of his beliefs is based on a foundation as unstable as his argument. In God we Trust Canadian conservatives hold the U.S. in the divine light of the anti-terrorist religion. In some instances they treat fellow Canadians as betrayers of "Mr. Bush's resolve and moral clarity", which is anything but clear. They also speculate as to who is worthy of being a U.S. ally. There is talk of restructuring a new alliance where "its nucleus should be the "coalition of the willing" now forming around America".

Here I ask, willing to what exactly, join the fear mongers? Conservatives openly admit they need to unite under fear and prejudice. The anonymously written article suggests, "We should be thinking now about building the new alliance structure around the United States, Britain, Australia, Turkey, such willing and supportive Old Europe countries as Spain and Italy, and the New Europe of deeply pro-American ex-communist states. Add perhaps India and Japan, and you have the makings of a new post-9/ 11 structure involving like-minded states that see the world of the 21st century as Americans do: threatened above all by the conjunction of terrorism, rogue states and weapons of mass destruction". In this case I ask, "Is building a coalition out of fear and prejudice at all healthy in the long run?" In their articles in the National Post, conservatives praise Americans.

They hypocritically treat rightfully skeptic Canadians as unworthy allies to the U.S. and almost offer a plea for forgiveness to the U.S. out of fear that they may be charges with heresy. This article that once again fails to mention the author reads, "The Americans, who have borne the brunt of the fighting in this war -- as well as the brunt of world vitriol in the months leading up to it -- would be well within their rights to leave Old Europe and Canada twisting in the residue of their peace nik sophistry". These are pretty harsh words for a Canadian newspaper to publish. It seems the author, whoever it may be, has decided for himself that Canada is useless.

But following this bit, the author recoils in his own insecurity, proving once again that that war on terrorism is not as plain as propagandized. There is a resolve suggesting he might prove to be wrong in his appeal. In the previous quote where he flagrantly discards Canada, this conservative opts for a second chance. It reads: "Only years of Canada demonstrating its willingness to carry its share of the burden of defending Western values will do". Here I ask, "Why should Western values be a burden to carry? Shouldn't values come more naturally and uphold us?

The fact that are attempted to be rammed down our Western throats may well be the reason why conservatives are choking on their own words. A New Game: Blown Wide Open Coming back to the "rules of engagement", the foreign policy of pre-emption is a frightening thing in itself. If you turn it on its head, what is to say that U.S. enemy nations should not apply the same principle fearing an attack by the U.S.? Recognizing this responsibility is perhaps the biggest cause for concern and fear by conservatives. It leaves them little room to turn back on their policy. Janice Gross Stein better illustrates the problem.

She writes, "It is foolhardy in the extreme to legitimate a principle that would grant every state a right to military pre-emption that depends only on its subjective definition of the character of its adversaries. Substituting some evidence of imminence -- no matter how fragmentary the intelligence -- with judgments about character opens the door to unlimited aggression". Clifford Orwin argues that, "America should never apologize for overthrowing Saddam's monstrous regime" but the consequences of commencing this campaign are grave. It would be hypocritical for the U.S. to stop only at toppling Saddam. It the name of the morality they have so vigorously attempted to justify, they should by principle take on the rest of their suspected enemies. Orwin is right in going on to emphasize that, "No one can say how the struggle against terrorism will go, or what reverses lie ahead".

For conservatives, Hugo Gurdon illustrates the dilemma of pre-emption. He writes "The question is not whether we are or should be at war but -- now we " re in a war, how do we win it?" In deed, how is this war to be won? It seems there is no backing out now. Where Do We Go from Here? As discussed, conservatives in general regarding the issue of anti-terrorism have been cultivated out of fear of being considered the enemy. Once again, the dichotomous ultimatum presented by the U.S. would never have been possible to deliver if it wasn't charged with fear and insecurity.

Canadian conservatives now caught in a struggle against their own beliefs, questioning their morals and values that derive from prejudice and frantic speculation have no foundation to turn to except a propagandized fear campaign. Pre-emption policy should "rightfully" be applied to other "terrorist states". It will be interesting to see how conservative American elite attempt to handle themselves now that they have completely submerged themselves and the rest of the Western world in an ocean of uncertainty.

Bibliography

Carlozzi, Christopher. "Superman vs. Batman: Liberal vs. Conservative", Minuteman. Nov. 15 2001, (12 October 2003).
Coyne, Andrew. "12 Arguments Against War, Rebutted", National Post. Mar. 7 2003, sec.
A. 15. Dershowitz, Alan M. "Deconstructing the War Debate", National Post. Jan. 30 2003, sec.
A. 21. "Fair Weather Friends", National Post. Apr. 7 2003, sec.
A. 13. "Get Off the Fence", National Post. Jan. 28 2003, sec.
A. 19. "Goerge W. Bush: Victor, Liberator", National Post. Apr. 10 2003, sec.
A. 23. Gross Stein, Janice. "Pandora's Box of Pre-emption Series: The Bush Doctrine", National Post. Oct. 25 2002, sec.
A. 26. Gurdon, Hugo. "In praise of Jingoism", National Post. Sept. 6 2002, sec A.
20. Herman, Edward S. and Chomsky, Noam. Manufacturing Consent. New York: Pantheon Books, 2002.
Just War Regardless, A" National Post. Jun. 4 2003, sec A.
17. Kingston, Anne. "Reality and the Show of War", National Post. Sept. 9 2003, sec.
A. 16. Krauthammer, Charles. "Winning the Peace Means New Alliances", National Post. Feb. 28 2003, sec.
A. 14. "On Many Fronts, Syria is the Problem", Natioanl Post. Sept. 17 2003.
sec. A. 17. Orwin, Clifford. "America is Justified in Striking First", National Post. Mar. 11 2003, sec.
A. 18. Orwin, Clifford. "The Riskiest Step in the War on Terror", National Post, 11 Sept. 2003, sec.
A. 18. Weigel, Goerge. "Declaring War Would Be the Moral Option", National Post. Nov. 20, 2002, sec.
A. 18. Woiceshyn, Glenn. "The Hatred of the Good", National Post. Feb. 25 2003, sec.