Hugh Hewitt has a great column up today, talking about how the plot on the show “24″ is entirely realistic. He suggests that a suitcase nuclear bomb is entirely likely, and those that suggest 24 has “gone too far” are saying that the writers/producers are engaging in fear-mongering. Hugh says:
Given that there are easily, oh, 10 million people in the world who would stand up and cheer at the real version of Monday night’s fictionalized attack, and at least a few tens of thousands trying hard to do a deed of at least proportionate scale given the weaponry available, it is silly to argue that “it” couldn’t possibly happen. Of course it could happen. Eventually another nuke will go off, and it is not likely to be the obvious action of a state actor. So what is the “too far” in the question supposed to mean? It can only be that “24″ is engaged in fear-mongering, and that is as stupid a charge as can be made.
Indeed. But who cares? Why does this matter? It matters because it affects publilc opinion, and aids the enemy:
The problem of the last century was a failure in the imagining of evil, a failure which was in some ways evil’s accomplice. “It can’t happen” often masked the very unfolding of the too-awful-to-occur event.
Head-in-the-sand thinking is so pervasive. Its much more happy and fluffy to believe that bad things will never happen.
So this brings to mind an interesting question: why are those who choose to take a viewpoint that could be called “realistic” accused of fear mongering, while those who, at best, live in denial (and at worst, are evil’s “accomplice”, as Hugh says) are considered to have the more reasonable view of America’s (and the world’s) future?
Fear mongering is best defined as such: spreading discreditable, misrepresentative information designed to induce fear and apprehension.
Many on the left accuse Bush of fear mongering in all of his words about the war on terror. Why?
The answer is not complicated. They simply do not believe in the danger that lurks.
They hear that terrorists kill indiscriminately, and they don’t believe it. They hear that no act of ours invited the islamofascist hate, and they don’t believe it. They hear that “talks”, diplomacy and appeasement would not change their evil minds, nor limit their plans for murder, and they don’t believe it. They hear that the islamists thrive on the suffering of infidels, and they don’t believe it. As President Bush once said, “The enemy is never tired, never sated, never content with yesterday’s brutality”. Yet again, they don’t believe it.
Their pure hatred for President Bush not only clouds their judgment, it helps perpetuate the idea that “we are all fine here in America, Bush is just trying to convert us all to his fundamentalist ways, and oh yeah, he’s evil and wants oil”. Their hatred extends to everyone on the right, and that hatred is nurtured by the biased media, who are all too eager to report on America’s failings. This hatred also lulls people into believing that there is no threat out there. How could this be possible, given that 9/11 was only 5 years ago?
The threat is very real. Our soldiers battle against this threat every day, only its not on our own soil. Don’t we prefer it that way? When will the left understand that protecting our country is not about politics? The right isn’t trying to win an argument about terrorism, they are trying to protect Americans.
Living in denial eventually has its consequences, and in this case, they are dire. Let’s hope we continue to have more “realistic” people than “reasonable” people in charge of making the decisions for our safety.