Freedom and Fear

The semester is almost over, and I have made it through the first two years of my program. While I'm tired, I also have a sense of satisfaction that I have made some progress as a scholar. My two semester projects came together late in the semester, so I think they probably need work. I'll post about those in the coming weeks; I'd like to get into the habit of writing more frequently.

My spare time - perhaps the hour per week that I have - has been devoted to watching documentaries. Although they aren't end-all, be-all to creating an informed populace, they're at least a start. They bring issues to light by at least presenting issues that people might not know anything about. I guess I could watch Bill O'Reilly or Al Franken, but I'm not sure I'd learn as much.

Atomic Cafe is one of those documentaries; there is no narrator, nor interviews of people. It's simply a number of clips from the 1950s, illustrating how atomic/nuclear weapons became a part of American life. It differs from many that I have seen because other documentaries tend to incorporate the thoughts of major players. For example, after watching Why we fight, I have grave reservations about John McCain. His interviews in the documentary lead me to question his ability to be frank with the American people. The first clip is the trailer for the documentary, and the second is an actual clip.








All too often, we have no one who aims at such honesty. I hear a number of excuses for this: national security, the American people are too dumb, or we just simply won't understand. We've come a long way from the days of the Fireside Chats, when the president felt it necessary to explain the banking crisis to the American people. I might be romanticizing a bit, lamenting the bygone days when the Americans could trust their government.

Or perhaps Americans could trust their government not to conduct itself in ways that were unbecoming. I understand that we need to secure our interests; I understand this is a dangerous world. However, it serves no purpose to distort the truth. American companies have played a role in contributing the instability in many countries, especially in Africa. The U.S. government has supported regimes that were not necessarily democratic in order to serve a larger geopolitical purpose, first during the Cold War and now during the war on terror. It occurs to me that hoping for open and honest discourse might simply be a pipe dream. Watch the progression in the videos below, leading up to the present day.











And here's an example of how people have sampled Bush's speeches:





So how does this tie into Atomic Cafe? I spent a better part of my childhood living in fear of nuclear holocaust. The fear was partially brought to life when my parents would assail me with stories about Soviets, bomb drills, silos, and the like. I would have nightmares of wandering alone through rubble, without my family. The film, at least, was a way for me to explore my parents' psyches about that period of their lives. In many ways it brought them into focus.

Other issues became clear, as well. As a reporter, I would cover emergency management drills. For those who don't know, emergency management is like civil defense 2.0. Civil defense began as a way to get the word out about preparedness in case of emergencies. After the recession of Communism, it went through a gradual metamorphosis to emergency management. It's most well-known government department is, of course, FEMA. And I never understood the idea of the "red alert". For as creepy as the documentary is, it helped me piece together a number of things. While I'm not an expert in collective memory, it seems a good study would compare the propaganda from the Cold War to the ideas circulating with the War on Terror. Here are some clips to at least set the stage for the collective memory that might be operating in the minds of the hawkish fellows using the American military "to fight terror" across the globe:











Is it worth understanding these connections? Absolutely. I think it would be difficult for the government to approach terrorism in the same way that it approached communism. Rather, it's easier to promote distraction and inaction; it's easier to paralyze discourse and promote group think through the common stamp of "unpatriotic". If the country is fragmented and polarized over the shadow-boxing campaign that currently exists, collective action against this war and toward a more positive direction is difficult to achieve. If we are not united, it is difficult to act the best interests of the country. If unity was reached, it boggles the mind what might be accomplished. Otherwise, we are left with what we are given.