I Thought We Were Moving Beyond the Politics of Fear

Words do mean something. In a conversation yesterday a friend pointed out how difficult it is for us to really engage politics. Once we make statements critical of one administration in hopes of prompting either change or a different direction by a soon-coming administration we must face up to the double-edge of our critique. Certainly this is overly simplistic. But, appeals for an anti-imperial, post-colonial approach to Iraq cannot be exchanged for the same kind of policy with regard to Afghanistan. If the attempt is to demonstrate we can engage without the prospect of securing a favorable source for oil then the notion of an anti-empire move becomes moot. Consistency would demand our troops come home from both Iraq and Afghanistan. So, there is more to the story. I am aware of that. But, the rhetoric used to describe the kind of change we need seems now to be what Krauthammer refers to as “sleight of hand.”

No, he is not describing the politics of war. He is addressing the politics of economy. Words are carefully chosen. Creating fear is something most modern people decry. However, we seem to find it a great weapon to stretch or agenda. What do you think? And rather than attack the writer (Krauthammer), how about the subject?

About the Author
Husband to Patty. Daddy to Kimberly and Tommie. Grandpa Doc to Cohen, Max, Fox, and Marlee. Pastor to Snow Hill Baptist Church. Graduate of Oklahoma Baptist University and Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary. Reading. Photography. Golf. Colorado. Jeeping. Friend. The views and opinions expressed here are my own and should not be construed as representing the corporate views of the church I pastor.

1 comment on “I Thought We Were Moving Beyond the Politics of Fear

  1. charlie says:

    I like the approach you take Todd, the double edge sword is indeed double yet I feel many are blind to its presence.

    So often I heard how horrible the previous administration was and agreed there are and were fumbles. I think they all have them, but as the writer pointed out things are not as the always seem when you are on the outside looking in. I believe once Mr Obama became president he was “enlightened” if you will, or dare I say knew already and posed a facade of change upon the American people that even he himself knew he could not deliver. What was and is being delivered is very much evident a social agenda like none other, whether that is good or bad is yet to be seen. Social agendas of this nature are nice things they look and feel good but unfortunately are rarely sustainable in the long term; of course the opposite is true as well.

    No I’m not a fan of President Obama, nor was I cheerleader for President Bush either. I did find it amazing shortly after he took power of his announcement of the huge troop surge to Afghanistan, and was somewhat amused by the lack of media response. I thought to myself, had President Bush announced this very thing the media would have been in frenzy. Same could be said for his attendance of a basketball game in Washington DC enjoying the game sipping a beer. Myself, I think that is great. If anyone needs timeout to relax if even for an hour or two it is our President, if he wants to sip a beer well even better. I heard only positive things from the media on this, and I thought well that is good. But had President Bush done this well….we would have heard a litany of criticisms about all the reasons and such he shouldn’t participate.

    Indeed it is a double edged sword; I only hope we can walk the line slowly.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.