|
A shadowy figure in a hooded sweatshirt carefully places an unknown object into a backpack. He does so while wearing latex gloves. He then walks into a public shopping mall, evading security. He constantly adjusts the hood of his sweatshirt to conceal his face. As he moves in the shadows, average Americans can be seen walking calmly, shopping and conversing. Children are playing in the indoor playground; all while the man gets closer to his target.
The mysterious figure keeps walking quickly, still making sure his hood covers his face. He then sits on a public bench and places the seemingly harmless backpack on the ground. Then darkness, followed by the sound of a massive explosion. This nightmarish scenario is not the scene of an action movie, but a television advertisement sponsored by a presidential candidate.
Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-Colo) released the television spot carrying this message because “someone needs to say it.” Tancredo defended this ad, citing a November 8 2007 FBI report stating that Al-Qaeda may target America’s shopping malls during the holiday shopping season. The ad, however, has received criticism as some call it nothing more than fear mongering. Some of this criticism has come from within his own party.
 |
| The Brooklyn Bridge has been named a possible target for Al Qaeda. Photo: James Allan |
Michael Meyer is a University of Colorado senior and active member of the Colorado Republican Party. Despite his belief that a Republican candidate will best fight terrorism, Meyer disapproves of the ad, and has stated he will not support Tancredo in the primaries.
“It’s funny in an ironic way considering he's using terrorism to rally against terrorism,” said Meyer. “Terrorism is essentially using fear to reach political ends. I'm not suggesting Tancredo is ill intentioned--terrorism is a major topic in this election. My problem with his ad is that it motivates people to support him for the wrong reasons.”
Tancredo has also received criticism on the national stage. Ibrahim Hooper of the Council on American-Islamic Relations publicly denounced the ad.
“He's obviously seeking to exploit the unfortunately rising level of anti-Muslim rhetoric in our society to promote his own political agenda,” said Hooper in a November 2007 interview with the Denver Post.
Tancredo is not the only candidate to involve the threat of a terror attack into a political campaign. Many have tied the risk of Islamic terrorism into their candidacy, stating that they are the best equipped to deal with this threat.
Senator John McCain (R-AZ) has stood by the war in Iraq by continually stating that a troop withdrawal will represent much more than a military surrender. McCain has offered a scenario in which a troop withdrawal would yield more Islamic terrorist attacks on American soil.
“They will follow us home,” said McCain in reference to this during a November 28 2007 CNN/Youtube Republican debate.
Rudy Giuliani’s campaign has largely revolved around the concept that he is the candidate who can best win the 'War on Terror.' Giuliani has continually stressed the fact that he was mayor of New York City on 9/11, giving him first hand experience in dealing with this threat of Islamic terror.
Giuliani also used this issue to publicly criticize his political opponents. In May, Giuliani publicly suggested that any Democratic president would make the country less safe, as they would put the country “back on defence.”
“If one of them gets elected, it sounds to me like we're going on the defence,” said Giuliani during a speech in May carried by all major news networks. “We've got a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq. We're going to wave the white flag there. We're going to try to cut back on the Patriot Act. We're going to cut back on electronic surveillance. We're going to cut back on interrogation. We're going to cut back, cut back, cut back, and we'll be back in our pre-September 11 mentality of being on defence.”
Katie Heinzen is an associate with Blakemore & Associates, a Republican consulting firm in Houston. The firm recently worked with presidential candidate Fred Thompson’s campaign, and plans to work with the Giuliani campaign in the future.
While the firm has not worked on any specific strategy involving the issue, Heinzen feels that using the terrorism issue is appropriate for a political campaign, and that Giuliani’s remarks about a Democratic president making the country less safe were fair game.
“I wasn’t bothered by what he said, because it is true. The Democrats want to pull out of Iraq, which will show the world that we are weak, and make us less safe,” said Heinzen. “Everyone wants our troops home, but at the same time you need a leader who will do their job.”
Not all voters, however, buy into this concept. This is evident on Giuliani’s home turf of New York City where recently 9/11 families, New York City firefighters, and others throughout the city have all publicly denounced the former mayor’s handling of the aftermath of 11 September 2001. One of these people is Lara Miller, a 21-year-old working for a Manhattan-based women’s advocacy group.
“Not everyone here thinks Giuliani handled Sept. 11 as well as he could have. There are a lot of questions he still has to answer,” said Miller. “I would never vote for him in a million years.”
Miller also disapproves of Giuliani using this tragedy in his campaign.
“Sept. 11 is the most sensitive issue you can bring up for New Yorkers. It was a devastating incident that shouldn’t be used for political gain,” said Miller.
Public figures have also denounced Giuliani. In a May campaign speech, Democratic candidate Barack Obama (D-Ill.) publicly responded to Giuliani’s criticism of the Democrats by stating that he had “taken the politics of fear to a new low.”
Others have also questioned the role that terrorism should play in all political dialogue. In a May speech to the Council on Foreign Relations, Democratic candidate John Edwards argued that the entire 'War on Terror' was nothing more than a tool for political gain.
“The ‘War on Terror’ is a slogan designed only for politics, not a strategy to make America safe. It's a bumper sticker, not a plan. It has damaged our alliances and weakened our standing in the world,” said Edwards. “It's been used to justify everything from the Iraq War, to Guantanamo, to illegal spying on the American people. It's even been used by this White House as a partisan weapon to bludgeon their political opponents. Whether by manipulating threat levels leading up to elections, or by deeming opponents weak on terror, they have shown no hesitation whatsoever about using fear to divide.”
Michael Kanner is a professor of political science at the University of Colorado, as well as a military veteran, who worked in counter-terrorism while on active duty. Kanner does not view the use of the terror threat for political gain as anything unprecedented, and has not been surprised by the 2008 campaign thus far, as past efforts such as Lyndon Johnson’s 1964 'Daisy' ad serve as an example of this type of campaigning.
Kanner stated that the aftermath of September 11 has also influenced American political discussion.
“9/11 is one of those major events in American history that overshadowed everything. Both the 2002 and 2004 campaigns were about security and who could do the best job. This will probably be true for 2008 as well,” said Kanner. “Fear sells. Most politicians know this and will use it to their advantage.”
Kanner also believes that this is no different than candidates using other issues to their advantage.
“It really is no different than any other candidate playing to their strength. Edwards plays to the populist sentiment and Hillary has played to her being the first woman to be seriously considered a candidate,” said Kanner.
Other analysts, however, feel that this combination of terrorism and politics is nothing more than propaganda. Award-winning documentary producer Adam Curtis created much controversy with his 2004 film 'The Power of Nightmares,' in which he accused the neoconservative powers in America of deliberately creating a climate of fear and paranoia surrounding terrorism.
“In the past politicians offered us dreams of a better world. Now they promise to protect us from nightmares,” said Curtis in the film.
Curtis argues that neoconservatives who served in both past and present administrations (specifically Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and Paul Wolfowitz) exploited American fear of the Soviet Union to consolidate power, and portray the nation as an ideological enemy rather than a security threat. Curtis accuses these very same neoconservatives of doing the same with Al-Qaeda, and the threat of Islamic terrorism.
“This threat (of terrorism) is a fantasy which has been exaggerated and distorted by politicians, a fantasy which politicians found restored their power and authority,” said Curtis. “After September 11, the neoconservatives began to reconstruct the Islamists, but they created a phantom enemy…this fear of a phantom enemy is all the politicians have left to maintain their power.”
Of course, not all agree with these theories about the 'War on Terror.' Many hail the policies as essential in the post-September 11 world. Politicians and academics point out, that since the declaration of a 'War on Terror,' there has not been an attack on US soil. Primary voters have not forgotten this.
Louise Criss is an 87-year-old lifelong Republican from Pittsburgh. Criss believes that there is a 'War on Terror,' and plans to support Giuliani for president as a result. She is also not fazed by the issue of terrorism being at the center of his campaign.
“I’m not bothered in the slightest by this,” said Criss. “I don’t think it is going too far.”
Criss’ rationale, in part, comes from her memory of life during WWII.
“Back then everyone was on the same page; everyone was trying to do their part. Back in those days there was no question that you had to do everything you could to win a war. You can’t imagine the difference from now and then,” said Criss.
Other voters have similar feelings. Stewart Anderson, an active member of the Vanderbilt University College Republicans, feels that politicians must incorporate the threat of terrorism into political campaigns in a post-September 11 world.
“I think it is important that a candidate takes terrorism seriously, and not treat it as a bumper sticker,” said Anderson. “I don’t want to go back to the Clinton years where no one did anything about the issue.”
Anderson also had harsh words for critics who argue that some have exploited the risks of terrorism for political gain.
“I find it highly inappropriate to deemphasize the issues surrounding terrorism. There is no greater issue we face right now than global terrorism. The threat is constantly changing, and it is something we have to adapt to. Therefore, we need a candidate who is well-equipped to deal with this threat and not avoid it.”
Many political insiders have offered theories on how this issue will play out in the 2008 election. James Hesky is a member of the Constituent Services Department for Senator Robert Casey Jr. (D-PA), and is no stranger to political campaigns. Hesky has worked for many Philadelphia politicians, and was also involved in Casey’s 2006 senate bid, in which he defeated a popular incumbent. Hesky believes terrorism is an important issue in political discourse, but should be used appropriately and not over-hyped.
“It is a serious issue and it should not be ignored. But it should always be put into context, and it shouldn’t be used as a tool of fear,” said Hesky. “In every campaign I have worked on, we have never exploited the issue.”
Hesky questions the sustainability of any political campaign based around the threat of terrorism.
“You can’t fall back on 9/11 like the Republicans did in the past. They used it as a way to scare the voters into saying ‘we don’t want another one of these.’ The same way they talked us into Iraq. The same way they talked us into reelecting Bush. I think people are getting sick of it. Playing the 9/11 card won’t work much longer,” said Hesky.
Hesky didn’t offer any predictions for the future election, but suspected that the threat of terrorism would not be the primary issue as in years past.
“Healthcare, values, Iraq, and other issues will play a bigger role in this election. It isn’t just about terrorism anymore. People have other concerns now,” said Hesky.
|
