The Psychology of Fear

A very interesting article from Psychology Today here. The preamble to this article is as follows: We think our political stance is the product of reason, but we're easily manipulated and surprisingly malleable. Our essential political self is more a stew of childhood temperament, education, and fear of death. Call it the 9/11 effect. After this attention-grabbing header, the article is actually a good read as well. Another great quote: We tend to believe our political views have evolved by a process of rational thought, as we consider arguments, weigh evidence, and draw conclusions. But the truth is more complicated. Our political preferences are equally the result of factors we're not aware of—such as how educated we are, how scary the world seems at a given moment, and personality traits that are first apparent in early childhood. Among the most potent motivators, it turns out, is fear. How the United States should confront the threat of terrorism remains a subject of endless political debate. But Americans' response to threats of attack is now more clear-cut than ever. The fear of death alone is surprisingly effective in shaping our political decisions—more powerful, often, than thought itself. This knowledge is put to good use by our governmental leadership. I recall reading this Chomsky article a while ago, and then trying to relate it to all of the things going on in the world. There is no shortage of information or examples on the subject; another decent article can be found here. I decided that some personal commentary was in order. September 11, 8:30 PM - President Bush makes a formal speech: "Today, our fellow citizens, our way of life, our very freedom came under attack in a series of deliberate and deadly terrorist acts," "Terrorist attacks can shake the foundations of our biggest buildings, but they cannot touch the foundation of America. These acts shatter steel, but they cannot dent the steel of American resolve," "The search is underway for those who are behind these evil acts...we will make no distinction between the terrorists who committed these acts and those who harbor them." (Why the harboring commentary soo soon? Are attcks on soverign nations already being contemplated?) As Bush speaks, members of Congress tell CNN that during private briefings with senior administration officials, they were told that the administration had enough evidence that it was "confident" that the attacks were the work of Osama bin Laden and his al Qaeda terrorist network. (How, exactly?) September 12, 10:53 AM - President Bush talks war. President George W. Bush holds a cabinet meeting, saying that the attacks "were more than acts of terror. They were acts of war." The esclation of fear is almost immediate. 12 hours after the event, the President is already laying the groundwork to go after people that did not participate in the attack, but only "harbored" them. After 24 hours, the government is publicly talking about war. October 7, 2001 - Invasion of Afghanistan We know that there were many Anti-Taliban speeches given in the lead-up to the invasion of Afghanistan. Fear of the Taliban and their motives ran rampant, and gained widespread suopport in the US. We are supposed to believe that this fear is justified, and is in direct result to the 9/11 attacks and the high likelyhood of Osama Bin Laden being harbored there. Therefore, the Bushites argued, we must remove the Taliban and install a new government. The governmental interest in Afghanistan, however, started well before 2001. In 1998, US oil interests expressed a great desire to have a new government in Afghanistan to support the building of oil pipelines. A very telling statement from 48–119 CC1998 U.S. INTERESTS IN THE CENTRAL ASIAN REPUBLICS (Feburary 15, 1998): "...The second option is to build a pipeline south from Central Asia to the Indian Ocean. One obvious route south would cross Iran, but this is foreclosed for American companies because of U.S. sanctions legislation. The only other possible route is across Afghanistan, which has of course its own unique challenges. The country has been involved in bitter warfare for almost two decades, and is still divided by civil war. From the outset, we have made it clear that construction of the pipeline we have proposed across Afghanistan could not begin until a recognized government is in place that has the confidence of governments, lenders, and our company." Obviously, the fear-mongering is being used for a completely different purpose. Perhaps the ultimate goal was this...