Click amount to donate direct to CounterPunch
  • $25
  • $50
  • $100
  • $500
  • $other
  • use PayPal
Support Our Annual Fund Drive!
CounterPunch’s website is one of the last common spaces on the Internet. We are supported almost entirely by the subscribers to the print edition of our magazine and by one-out-of-every-1000 readers of the site.
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

Fear and Loathing in the North

by TOM BARRY

President Bush signed a bill this week authorizing the construction of a 700-mile fence along the U.S.-Mexico border. Immigration experts and counterterrorism experts say that this new plan to barricade the southern border will have little impact on immigration flows and terrorist networks.

This new “homeland security” project is latest in the administration’s campaign to impose a politics of fear in the United States that keeps voters supporting militarism and nationalism as the best guarantors of U.S. welfare and security. In this case, the signing of the border security bill in the advent of mid-term elections was in effect a political advertisement designed to convince voters that their security is best left in the hands of tough-minded Republicans.

The politics of fear and hate have long unified the U.S. electorate. For four decades the Cold War created bipartisan support for a military-industrial complex at home and for U.S.-supported “national security states” in Latin America and elsewhere in the third world. The “global war on terrorism” and the post-Sept. 11 attention to homeland security largely revived public support for a foreign policy whose two pillars are fear and power.

Fortunately there are signs that the politics of fear and loathing in the United States are no longer winning the hearts and minds of voters. As evident in the declining popularity of the president and the Republican Congress, the public is losing faith that a foreign policy that asserts global dominance and disdains diplomacy is making the world a safer place.

Three recent polls in the United States show a U.S. electorate that favors a new approach to international relations.

In a poll conducted by the Chicago Council on Global Affairs, three out of four interviewed expressed concern that the U.S. government was too inclined to play the role of a “world policeman.” Another poll released last week by Foreign Affairs, the magazine of the Council on Foreign Relations, found that 80% of those polled believed that the world was becoming a more dangerous place and nearly 90% considered rising anti-U.S. sentiment worldwide to constitute a national security threat.

Another poll conducted by the Program on International Policy Attitudes similarly underscored the swelling dissatisfaction with the effectiveness of the Bush administration’s foreign policy while also finding that a large majority of respondents preferred a radically different approach to international relations, favoring cooperation over unilateralism and U.S. military dominance.

“What kind of foreign policy does the American public want?” That was the central question posed by a new PIPA poll. Among the main findings of this polling of 1,058 Americans were that “the United States would best serve the national interests by thinking in terms of being a good neighbor'” and that the U.S. government “plays too much on the public’s fear to justify its foreign policies.”

Seventy-nine percent of those polled believed that “the United States should think in terms of being a good neighbor with other countries because cooperative relationships are ultimately in the best interests of the United States.” That same broad majority opted for the view that the “U.S. should coordinate its power together with other countries according to shared ideas of what is best for the world as a whole.”

Sixty-five percent agreed with the statement: “When the U.S. government justifies its foreign policies to the American people, it plays on people’s fears too much.”

The new poll, completed Oct. 15, gives good reason to believe that there is a large sector of the U.S. public that would support a foreign policy that reflects the good neighbor principles of mutual respect and cooperation. It also pointed to the underlying need for a foreign policy based on hope and determination rather than on fear.

Indicators that there will soon be a shift in political power in Congress from the Republicans to the Democrats and new polling evidence of the deep dissatisfaction with current U.S. foreign policy offer some hope that the politics of reason and cooperation are ascending in the United States as the politics of fear and loathing lose their hold.

TOM BARRY is policy director of the International Relations Center.

 

 

Tom Barry directs the Transborder Program at the Center for International Policy and is a contributor to the Americas Program www.cipamericas.org.

More articles by:

2016 Fund Drive
Smart. Fierce. Uncompromised. Support CounterPunch Now!

  • cp-store
  • donate paypal

CounterPunch Magazine

minimag-edit

September 26, 2016
Diana Johnstone
The Hillary Clinton Presidency has Already Begun as Lame Ducks Promote Her War
Gary Leupp
Hillary Clinton’s Campaign Against Russia
Dave Lindorff
Parking While Black: When Police Shoot as First Resort
Robert Crawford
The Political Rhetoric of Perpetual War
Howard Lisnoff
The Case of One Homeless Person
Michael Howard
The New York Times Endorses Hillary, Scorns the World
Russell Mokhiber
Wells Fargo and the Library of Congress’ National Book Festival
Chad Nelson
The Crime of Going Vegan: the Latest Attack on Angela Davis
Colin Todhunter
A System of Food Production for Human Need, Not Corporate Greed
Brian Cloughley
The United States Wants to Put Russia in a Corner
Guillermo R. Gil
The Clevenger Effect: Exposing Racism in Pro Sports
David Swanson
Turn the Pentagon into a Hospital
Ralph Nader
Are You Ready for Democracy?
Chris Martenson
Hell to Pay
Frank X Murphy
Power & Struggle: the Detroit Literacy Case
Chris Knight
The Tom and Noam Show: a Review of Tom Wolfe’s “The Kingdom of Speech”
Weekend Edition
September 23, 2016
Friday - Sunday
Andrew Levine
The Meaning of the Trump Surge
Jeffrey St. Clair
Roaming Charges: More Pricks Than Kicks
Mike Whitney
Oh, Say Can You See the Carnage? Why Stand for a Country That Can Gun You Down in Cold Blood?
Chris Welzenbach
The Diminution of Chris Hayes
Vincent Emanuele
The Riots Will Continue
Rob Urie
A Scam Too Far
Pepe Escobar
Les Deplorables
Patrick Cockburn
Airstrikes, Obfuscation and Propaganda in Syria
Timothy Braatz
The Quarterback and the Propaganda
Sheldon Richman
Obama Rewards Israel’s Bad Behavior
Libby Lunstrum - Patrick Bond
Militarizing Game Parks and Marketing Wildlife are Unsustainable Strategies
Andy Thayer
More Cops Will Worsen, Not Help, Chicago’s Violence Problem
Louis Yako
Can Westerners Help Refugees from War-torn Countries?
David Rosen
Rudy Giuliani & Trump’s Possible Cabinet
Joyce Nelson
TISA and the Privatization of Public Services
Pete Dolack
Global Warming Will Accelerate as Oceans Reach Limits of Remediation
Franklin Lamb
34 Years After the Sabra-Shatila Massacre
Cesar Chelala
How One Man Held off Nuclear War
Norman Pollack
Sovereign Immunity, War Crimes, and Compensation to 9/11 Families
Lamont Lilly
Standing Rock Stakes Claim for Sovereignty: Eyewitness Report From North Dakota
Barbara G. Ellis
A Sandernista Priority: Push Bernie’s Planks!
Hiroyuki Hamada
How Do We Dream the Dream of Peace Together?
Russell Mokhiber
From Rags and Robes to Speedos and Thongs: Why Trump is Crushing Clinton in WV
Julian Vigo
Living La Vida Loca
Aidan O'Brien
Where is Europe’s Duterte? 
Abel Cohen
Russia’s Improbable Role in Everything
Ron Jacobs
A Change Has Gotta’ Come
Uri Avnery
Shimon Peres and the Saga of Sisyphus
Graham Peebles
Ethiopian’s Crying out for Freedom and Justice
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail