3 ms·
> From what I've read there was a lot of domestic overreaction during WW1 and WW2. Yes, there was. The unfortunate difference between then and now is that the
by agwa 14y ago
> From what I've read there was a lot of domestic overreaction during WW1 and WW2.
Yes, there was. The unfortunate difference between then and now is that then there was a clear end to the hostilities. The "war on terror" has no such clear end. Doesn't matter that Bin Laden was killed, doesn't matter that there hasn't been a successful terror attack in more than 10 years (and that nearly all the unsuccessful ones probably wouldn't have existed if not for the assistance of undercover FBI agents). When will it end? You can always claim that there are still more "radicals" out there who want to kill us, and that further fear is justified.
- mikeash 14y agoAnother difference is that the government generally tried to keep things orderly and calm. Not to say that government didn't engage in overreaction as well (e.g. internment camps) but the overall theme appeared to be one of reassurance. Modern government seems to thrive on making people as afraid as possible, perpetuating the cycle instead of damping it.
- mpweiher 14y agoExactly. We can't promise you dreams, but we can keep you safe from nightmares. Of course, we need some nightmares for that. For details, see the BBC documentary "The Power of Nightmares (The Rise of the Politics of Fear)" by Adam Curtis. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Power_of_Nightmares http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Power_of_Nightmares http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xGo1DqmfHjY http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xGo1DqmfHjY
- rsynnott 14y agoWhich to an extent, is why it exists; a last-minute substitute for the previous unending pseudo-war.