US After the Election: Permanent Alarm

THE US AFTER THE ELECTION

By H.A. HOFFMANN

[This article originally published in: Zeit-Fragen, Nr. 44, November 15, 2004 is translated from the German on the World Wide Web, http://www.zeit-fragen.ch/ARCHIVES/ZF_1236/INDEX.HTM. Dr. H.A. Hoffmann is a child physician and psychotherapist in Kiel.]



A nation has voted. The results cause one half to rejoice while the other sinks in shock and anxiety. Doubts are heard about the regulative strength of our democratic state. A climate of collective fear was consciously produced with “Jesus would vote for Bush”, with systematically instrumentalized fear of terror through alternating alert phases, with invented weapons of mass destruction and a self-induced anthrax danger.

What illustrative material did the come-of-age citizen need to help him in the election decision? Wasn’t enough material offered by the systematic dismantling of civil rights in one’s own country and elsewhere with the atrocities of Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib, the targeted deception of the general public to obtain consent by devious means to an offensive war scorning the UN and disregarding international law, the staggering increase of state indebtedness in one’s own country and the increasing polarization between poor and rich?

Wasn’t there a credible alternative in the person of the opposing candidate?

The discoveries of Gustave Le Bon in his “Psychology of the Masses” (1911) were confirmed in a sad way by National Socialism and are still valid in our day despite – or on account of – the abundance of information of our media societies. At the end the person is helplessly manipulable and delivered up or handed over then and today.

Our sole superpower has given its president more power for another 4 years. A clearly unstable self-suggestive personality without understanding his limited ethical and moral possibilities under the working conditions of a Homo Politicus is once again the most powerful man of the world – in a globally explosive situation that cries for humane, cause-oriented and long-lasting solutions to conflicts.



“Permanent Alarm”

Sociology Professor Richard Sennett on the Consequences of the US Election for Europe and the World

[This interview is translated from the German in :Spiegel 48/2004.]

[Richard Sennett, 61, teaches sociology at the London School of Economics. He attracted attention on this side and on the other side of the Atlantic with his essay on a possible “soft fascism” in the US.]

Spiegel: You worked for John Kerry. Is Bush’s victory a shock for you?

Sennett: I am very depressed about the outcome but I was not surprised. Culture was involved here more than politics. The American public tried to vote its identity, what it defines as American.

Spiegel: A high voter turnout normally helps the democrats.

Sennett: Both camps were helped this time. The young and colored voter potential was mobilized just like the Christian right. People voted about a cultur4al profile of US society, not about politicians. This is seen for example in that all the referendums on gay marriage in eleven states were voted down.

Spiegel: The democrats obviously lost traditional followers, the industrial workers.

Sennett: There is a new class structure. Those going downhill suddenly see religion or patriotism as the answer.

Spiegel: Did the republicans masterfully wage an election campaign of fear?

Sennett: That was very successful. This election was an expression of fear combined with ignorance about the economy. I don’t normally adopt the terms of psychoanalysis but they are useful in this case. The American majority that voted for Bush is a case study of repression. That the economy is sick, that the country is isolated and that the ground begins to totter in Bush’s America – all this is denied. Instead there is this deceptive delusion of so-called traditional values.

Spiegel: What does this mean for Europe?

Sennett: Europe must become more united and stronger in dealing with the US. The resistance in Germany and France against the war in Iraq is a very good sign. Europe must now screen itself economically from the disastrous economic consequences of this election.

Spiegel: Do you see the danger of a recession in the US?

Sennett: Absolutely. The Bush administration has a miserable economic record and lacks the minds that could change this. The US economy will suffer with even greater problems. In the past Europeans had problems with global US monopolies and giants like Microsoft. The dangers are now different. Europeans must protect themselves from a possible American recession with a united policy.

Spiegel: In a united alliance against the US?

Sennett: This is an exact parallel to the Iraq war. If Europeans act passively, they will be drawn into the swamp. Europe has chances with a more active policy.

Spiegel: Does Tony Blair’s Great Britain play a role?

Sennett: The election result will bring problems for Blair. Keeping fear alive is the logic according to which the White House operates under Bush. A permanent state of alert must exist. We will undoubtedly witness more military operations in the next four years.

Spiegel: Are you speaking of Iran or North Korea?

Sennett: First of all, Iran. This is a dreadful problem for Blair. He has such a close personal relation to Bush that distancing himself from other possible adventures will be hard for him.

Spiegel: The permanent militarization that you foresee is a horror scenario.

Sennett: I regard it as very realistic.

Spiegel: A militarized society with reactionary values and deeply rooted fears – do you see this kind of “soft fascism” approaching?

Sennett: I don’t know whether it will come but a great number of people in the US are alarmed. The Bush administration is right of center. Many of my colleagues and friends are worried that only right-wingers will be nominated to the Supreme Court. Civil rights are in danger when the security apparatus curtails rights.

The US is divided and paralyzed in its center. Since there is no collective goal any more, the tendency of setting or building artificial fronts is strengthened. This goes in the direction of soft fascism.

Spiegel: How can this be resisted?

Sennett: The American centralized power is very limited in its control over local realities. The US resembles Germany more than France. My essay on soft fascism was an answer to a very widespread fear that will increase further after this election victory.