Participants
in New HampshireFor Politics, Fear is the New Sex, and How it Sells
Ever notice how sleazy a commercial can get these days to sell their wares? I’m thinking of the Axe fragrance commercials, which appeal to the baser aspirations of young folks. A trip from Madison Avenue to Washington and the equation’s the same with different integers: our basest fears sell vague legislation.
Dig this NPR piece for example. In the eighties, our fear of the crack epidemic made it possible for congress to pass all sorts of disproportionate, and somewhat racist legislation. It seemed reasonable at the time because society was gravely obsessed with this new drug strain. In the nineties, we saw yet another interesting spin on law enforcement called Hate Crimes, which slowly began to bring ideological bias into the scope of what an individual can be prosecuted for. The KKK is the poster-boy target of this legislation, but such cases against the KKK get less notice than instances like Jena and Duke (all involve young people, interestingly, not ensconced American institutions like the Klan).
And now “…-crime legislation” has reached it’s inevitable jump from “drug crime” to “hate crime” to (drum roll, please) “thought crime legislation”. And just like the PATRIOT Act, this cropping of civil liberties is abided in fear of the great “classified” menace of terrorism.
During revolutionary America, taxes, quartering, and laws banning “assembly” just like this were all used to disrupt revolutionary activity. I humbly submit that our democracy has many flaws, but most can be redressed if Americans would only inform themselves better politically. But that process of reform would certainly occur through organized grassroots criticism of our government. What’s to stop the government to disrupt such a process under this “thought crime” legislation?
When the Declaration of Independence called for the contingency that the People may alter, abolish and institute new government, wouldn’t they first compose a plan in which to do it? What crosses my mind immediately is the debate of “one man’s freedom fighter is another’s terrorist.” Until now, the feds could harass protest groups like the Black Panthers and Anarchists on ancillary charges like gun possession, tax evasion, and actual concrete acts of violence. In other words, evidence that can prove willful intent to break the law. The passage of HR 1955 or S. 1959 will now make it possible for the government to preempt any organization or individual based on their ideological belief in the need for revolutionary change.
Dig this NPR piece for example. In the eighties, our fear of the crack epidemic made it possible for congress to pass all sorts of disproportionate, and somewhat racist legislation. It seemed reasonable at the time because society was gravely obsessed with this new drug strain. In the nineties, we saw yet another interesting spin on law enforcement called Hate Crimes, which slowly began to bring ideological bias into the scope of what an individual can be prosecuted for. The KKK is the poster-boy target of this legislation, but such cases against the KKK get less notice than instances like Jena and Duke (all involve young people, interestingly, not ensconced American institutions like the Klan).
And now “…-crime legislation” has reached it’s inevitable jump from “drug crime” to “hate crime” to (drum roll, please) “thought crime legislation”. And just like the PATRIOT Act, this cropping of civil liberties is abided in fear of the great “classified” menace of terrorism.
During revolutionary America, taxes, quartering, and laws banning “assembly” just like this were all used to disrupt revolutionary activity. I humbly submit that our democracy has many flaws, but most can be redressed if Americans would only inform themselves better politically. But that process of reform would certainly occur through organized grassroots criticism of our government. What’s to stop the government to disrupt such a process under this “thought crime” legislation?
When the Declaration of Independence called for the contingency that the People may alter, abolish and institute new government, wouldn’t they first compose a plan in which to do it? What crosses my mind immediately is the debate of “one man’s freedom fighter is another’s terrorist.” Until now, the feds could harass protest groups like the Black Panthers and Anarchists on ancillary charges like gun possession, tax evasion, and actual concrete acts of violence. In other words, evidence that can prove willful intent to break the law. The passage of HR 1955 or S. 1959 will now make it possible for the government to preempt any organization or individual based on their ideological belief in the need for revolutionary change.
Facebook
YouTube
Twitter
LinkedIn