Fear is a potent and persuasive force in the rhetoric of a political operative. It is also an effective way to capture an audience’s attention. But, in life, we have to choose our fears carefully. Attacking windmills is no alternative for having the discernment, the tenacity, and courage to address real problems. Fear is our early warning system that can either inhibit us or spur us to action in the face of a real problem. If the problem is not real, then the elicited fear is not real, but an artificial ploy. Recognizing the difference is personal and liberating. And that recognition is true for both the individual and the nation.

When I was a little boy, my father and I would wrestle on the floor of our small living room. Besides the intimacy that I always had with my father, I remember how he did not always feign defeat in these matches. Sometimes, he would pin me to the floor. My mother would hear my complaints and attempt to intervene. But my father would say, “He needs to learn how to recover from defeat. He won’t always win in life.” Later, when he discovered that I was being bullied at school, he confronted me with the question, “Do you like being bullied?” Of course, I said “no.” His response was to buy me a punching bag and teach me how to defend myself, even against a bully older and bigger than myself.

It would be easy to draw the wrong lesson from my father’s actions. It was not about aggression, but about resilience. Eventually, I came to understand his intent as I learned the context of his life. As a teenager during the Depression, he and his older brother carried 100 lb. sacks of coal they stole from abandoned mines in Pennsylvania in order to keep their family warm during the harsh winter months. With the death of his step father, the family struggled to clothe and feed themselves. They depended upon the meagre income he earned from the streets and a local bakery. When he graduated from High School, he was offered a college scholarship. He refused. Instead, he went to New York where he could earn more money to support his widowed mother and younger siblings and pay for his sister’s college tuition. After Pearl Harbor, he wanted to enlist. But he was still the sole support of his family and his new wife. As it turned out, his desire to enlist was preempted by the draft. But before he was sent into combat, the army found him medically unfit and honorably discharged him. The soldiers in his Platoon went on to fight at Normandy and, according to reports, were all killed on D Day. Were it not for the ear infections that partially deafened him for life, I would not have been born.

During my development years, my father was the family breadwinner. He worked as a blue collar worker all his life and somehow managed to pay my undergraduate tuition and, after I left home, invested in my mother’s late blooming career. One of his best friends as a young man went on to earn a doctorate at UC Berkeley. That friend said of my father that he was the most intelligent man he had ever known. On the occasion of my father’s funeral, he wrote, “he was the best of us.” What my father’s life taught me was to always choose the “high road” and never give up or give in.

My previous blog closed with a reference to the sacrifices made by my father’s generation—“The Great Generation,” as chronicled in Tom Brokaw’s book. My father was not alone. Many men, women and children persevered through the challenges of Depression and World War. The Presidency of Franklin D. Roosevelt witnessed the soup lines, massive unemployment, Pearl Harbor, the sinking of commercial ocean freighters, and, of course, World War II in which over 400 thousand American soldiers died. Roosevelt’s “fireside chats” were designed to bolster the American population during those times of stress. He assured his listeners that America would eventually win the peace and secure our country. So why did he caution against fear?

I think the answer relates to my father’s question, “Do you like being bullied?” Both men knew that fear can immobilize an individual or a people. Roosevelt, for example, recognized that a nation gripped with fear risked defeat or a response stultified by panic. He chose for America the “high road,” demanding sacrifice, courage, and persistence. The lesson of my father was really the same for his entire generation. Together, they suppressed their fears and persisted to win that peace and build a platform for future prosperity. The lesson was one of resilience. And their fear was real.

Today, America is secure and prosperous. But it still harbors fears. During the Presidential campaign, the fears that seem to dominate the news cycle come from issues of terrorism, a Syrian refugee crisis, Muslim or undocumented immigrants, and the possible ill health or incompetency of the Presidential candidates. Do these issues justify the fear they engender? And is the fear real? Perhaps a closer look is warranted.

➣ Today we recognize the fifteenth anniversary of the World Trade Center disaster. Since 9/11/2001, there have been no successful attacks on American soil from foreign terrorists. Instead, we have experienced mass killings by Americans who claimed to be inspired by Daesh.
➣ Actual immigration and refugee statistics for the last year have not yet been released. But, in 2014, America gave slightly over one million immigrants permanent residency status. Only 96 thousand of these immigrants were refugees. None of them came from Syria. Some were undoubtedly Muslim, though I could not find an immigration statistic for this population. Their religious affiliation, of course, is not material to their immigration status. This year America has admitted ten thousand Syrian refugees; and several hundred thousand of the 11 million Syrian refugees have so far made their way to Europe. America has agreed to vet another 65 thousand Syrian refugees for residency in 2017.
➣ In 2014, 133 thousand Mexican nationals were awarded residency status. Currently, the influx of undocumented immigrants now matches the exodus of Mexican nationals. Since a large portion of those now crossing the borders without visas are from other Central American countries, the actual number of undocumented arrivals from Mexico is actually decreasing. Of course, the Hispanic population in this country is increasing because of the number of births within that community. Somewhere between a third and half of the estimated 11 million undocumented Hispanics currently in America were born in America. In other words, in accordance with our Constitution, they are actually fellow Americans. Nevertheless, this Administration has extradited more undocumented immigrants than any previous Administration. Among the factors accounting for more extraditions are two changes made during this Administration: the border control force has been augmented and is now larger than all Federal law agencies combined; and the Administration has emphasized the priority of extraditing all undocumented residents with criminal records whether recorded here or in their country of origin. Having stated these factors, I have not dismissed the number of law-abiding undocumented immigrants that have been exported to their native countries. I just do not have their numbers, but can only guess at the anguish of their families.
➣ The issues of health and competency of our Presidential candidates seem to be a matter for the electorate to decide. Both candidates have letters from medical doctors testifying they are fit for office. Both candidates will be the oldest nominees for office since President Reagan. Their medical condition is a matter for consideration in their respective eligibility for office.

These issues are not the only things discussed and argued during this campaign season. But they seem to get the most attention. Apart from the nominees’ respective health or competency, why should we fear foreign terrorist, Syrian refugees, undocumented Mexican nationals, or Muslims? Obviously, terrorists do not present an existential threat to America at this time. The focus should be—and already is—on corralling and defeating Daesh in Syria, limiting their ability to resupply and support their fighters, and counter their internet recruitment efforts. Regarding the Syrian immigrant crisis, it has hardly touched the United States homeland. At this time, America is already the largest contributor to refugee camps overseas. But it is true that America’s one to two year vetting process does slow down the flow of refugees. This vetting process could be expedited if Congress chose to exempt certain classes of refugees, as they did at the conclusion of the Vietnam War. Given the large number of immigrants already seeking residency in America, there seems to be little incentive for Congress to exempt or reduce the vetting of Syrian refugees. The concern about large numbers of criminals entering via our southern border or of terrorists entering with visas from Muslim countries like Syria is not supported by facts. With respect to Muslim immigrants, our Constitution would prohibit their exclusion on the basis of their religion. And Muslims have been immigrating to America since 1880; and nearly all of the three million or so Muslims currently living in America were born here. Never in the intervening 136 years have American Muslims presented any reason for other Americans to fear them. So, given these considerations, why do these issues consume so much consideration?

The answer involves motivation. The Republican nominee fans unwarranted fears of a denigrated portion of the electorate, while demonizing his opponent. The Democratic nominee uses these misdirected fears to draw attention to her counterpart’s incompetence, while likewise demonizing him. The press is content to cover any contest that entertains its audience or readers with the back-and-forth of accusations, conspiracy theories, alleged scandals, and personal insults. In other words, both campaigns and the press want to shape the narrative to either sell a candidate or hold an audience’s attention, respectively. But what is being missed in this campaign charade? What issues are real causes for concern? Let’s review a few hard problems that are being overlooked.

➣ Our contest with Russia has been on a slow burn for over a decade now and threatens to overheat to that point of no return. The press laughed at the 2012 Republican Presidential nominee for drawing attention to this concern. But is another Cold War imminent? Or are we already so engaged? This contest with Russia did not start with the Georgia invasion nor culminate with the invasions of Crimea and eastern Ukraine. It is ongoing and has precedents. President Bush encouraged the expansion of NATO to the Russian border and withdrew the United States from the ABM treaty. Under President Obama, the United States activated a missile defense site in Romania, broke ground on another missile defense site in Poland, and punished Russia for its actions in Ukraine with stringent economic sanctions. Meanwhile, Putin has been planning how to neutralize the supposed threats posed by these missile defense sites in Eastern Europe. While Congress is proposing a one trillion dollar allocation over ten years to modernize the nuclear triad, including new cruise missiles, nuclear submarines, ICBMs, and bombers, Putin has announced he will bring five new strategic nuclear missile regiments into service. It is naive to call Putin a bully who merely needs to be confronted. He is acting out of the context of recent history and his own predilections regarding America’s allegedly devious intentions. Our next President has to find a way to deal with Putin before either side continues this escalation into a tense standoff in Eastern Europe—something reminiscent of the Cuban missile crisis.
➣ North Korea and Iran are both developing ICBMs which normally are built to deliver nuclear warheads. Meanwhile, President Obama has decided to deliver a missile defense system to South Korea. Israel, of course, already has the American supplied Iron Dome Missile Shield. With respect to Iran, The President’ pursuit of the Iran nuclear deal was intended to immediately set back Iran’s nuclear program and establish an inspection protocol that would permanently remove the threat of a weaponized nuclear program. (Whether his intent is successful will depend upon the verification protocol being maintained and Iran’s behavior after the initial ten year reductions in their atomic energy program are “normalized.”) North Korea’s recent underground nuclear test definitely raises the stakes there. Kim Jong Un’s intent to develop intercontinental missiles weaponized with nuclear warheads is transparent. Perhaps I am alone in wondering whether the missile defense systems the United States is installing in Eastern Europe and South Korea might also have a dual role. Besides protecting our allies, they could also serve as an early warning system for a possible nuclear attack on the homeland. Maybe my imagination is running away with me. But, last I checked, our nuclear defense is still based upon mutual mass destruction. In this context, early warning is critical. And the intent of a nuclear armed North Korea becomes critical in raising America’s alert level and response preparedness.
➣ China now boasts that its nuclear submarine fleet is larger than the U. S. fleet. It has extended its reach from the South China Sea to the Western Pacific. Meanwhile, the U. S. has ramped up its naval presence in the Eastern Pacific and promoted alliances across Asia as a counterweight to Chinese influence in the region. American ships and reconnaissance flights in the South China Sea have instigated Chinese intercepts which have been termed provocative and dangerous by the Pentagon. Meanwhile the Chinese are proposing their own RECEP (Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership) agreement to counter the Obama Administration’s TPP (The Pacific Partnership) agreement that both Presidential candidates have criticized. China fears that the TPP will cement America’s influence in their region where possibly 40% of the world’s commerce may reside.
➣ The Middle East is in the midst of a medieval clash of civilizations where modernity is being weighed against the rigid security of oppressive regimes and the comforting customs of religious practice. Will some form of democracy emerge or, in the absence of democratic institutions, just mob violence? How can traditional religious practice meld with the secularism of modern states? The West could stand back and watch the Middle East burn. Or, perhaps under American leadership, the West could find a way to act constructively and respectfully in the region. The fighting in Syria, Iraq, Yemen, Libya, and the spillover into terrorist acts of violence in Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Bahrain, and Jordan now overshadow the long standing conflict between Israel and the Palestinian territory. There is only one unifying theme in the region’s amalgam of dissident sects, tribal rivalries, and foreign engagement in proxy wars, specifically, distrust for the West. Although America was never part of the colonial regimes, it is still seen as the chief representative of the West and is called the Great Satan. Since the Carter Administration, every President has taken a turn at solving the Middle East conundrum. It may be unsolvable for anybody from the West. Nevertheless, no President can completely ignore the region for, as we have seen in Syria and the recent wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya , this region’s dysfunction cannot be contained within its borders.
➣ On the home front, there are far too many issues that loom large; but none can be addressed because of gridlock in Washington. Party politics have made it impossible to address any issue in a united and coordinated fashion, including the national debt (13-14 trillion plus another 6 trillion owed to the Social Security Trust Fund), deficit spending (forecasted to average 500 billion per year through 2021), infra structure investments (roads bridges, airports, the electrical grid, internet access, etc.), other related tactics in support for job creation (like an infra structure bank, inner city economic zones, renewable energy subsidies, and so on), measures to address income inequality (like a minimum wage increase, extension of the earned income credit, tuition subsidies, vocational training in high school, additional support for community colleges, etc.), tax reform (leveling the corporate field for competition by eliminating loopholes and lowering corporate taxes uniformly, lowering the tax burden for working middle class families, eliminating tax havens overseas, etc.), health care (cost reductions in pharmaceuticals, shoring up the insurance loss counter-provisions now prohibited by the courts, possibly some compromise on a public option), and entitlement reforms to bolster the solvency of Social Security and Medicare. The reason there are so many unaddressed issues is the fact that they have been accumulating for years without even appearing on the Congressional agenda. Meanwhile, 50-60 repeals of “Obamacare” have passed the House; and the government’s budget is juggled like a hot potato until the legislators run for the exit at the midnight deadline. Whatever happened to the “service” in public service?

Both wittingly and unwittingly, the media shapes the narratives of this campaign season to focus on the less significant issues while the candidates in turn attempt to disqualify each other as unfit for office. My readers can decide on who is or is not fit for office. But I am free to question this misplaced focus for trivializing a Presidential election campaign. My last bullet captures perhaps the most critical issue before us. Americans are looking for a change election because they are fed up with the way the institutions of government are being managed. They have been hijacked by special interest and political stratagems that show little regard for the general welfare of Americans. (A specific example of the latter I addressed in my blog, “Perverted Politics.”)

The current political discourse hypes bogus fears that misdirect the public into unrealistic and simplistic solutions: build walls to “protect” the nation from “illegal aliens”; prohibit Muslim a/o Syrian immigrants to “protect” Americans from terrorists. Obviously, there are and have been people who live in America without proper visas. Not all of them are Mexicans. And their offense is legally termed a misdemeanor for which they can be deported. Looking out my window, I see several of them working on a construction project. I know they are not unionized and are underpaid for their work. This is a problem for them, their families, and for America. But it is not a cause for fear. Likewise, apart from the “shoe bomber” and “underwear bomber,” who were both unsuccessful, we have had no Muslim foreign infiltrators terrorizing America since the 9/11 attack 15 years ago. We have more homegrown terrorists with whom to reckon than foreigners. And they are not “Muslim extremists.” When I studied comparative religion, a religious extremist of any denomination was an advocate for a literal interpretation of sacred scriptures, not a terrorist. So use of the term “radical Muslim extremist” is more a derogatory comment on a person’s religious affiliation than a means to defeat Daesh. It is a mislabeling intended to induce fear and loathing for a religion—an easy scapegoat for the deluded souls who adopt various justifications—religious and otherwise—for their murderous rampage.

When Roosevelt attempted to quell fear, his purpose was to give hope and instill courage in the American people. He wanted to elicit their resolve in the face of fear. A leader inspires; a politician persuades. But the citizen must distinguish the difference between inspiration and demagoguery, between persuasion and manipulation. Fear is the artifice of choice for the manipulator and the demagogue. Just remember, “The only thing we have to fear is fear itself.”

(More on this topic can be found in “America’s Broken System” and with a touch of satire, in “Compromise, An Unfulfilled Promise.”)