In Squaring Off, Zócalo invites authors into the public square to answer five probing questions about the essence of their books. For this round, we pose questions to Jay Feldman, author of Manufacturing Hysteria: A History of Scapegoating, Surveillance, and Secrecy in Modern America.
The American political system has always been resilient, even in the face of efforts to curb civil liberties. Feldman, author of several books and articles, makes the case for vigilance as a way to preserve our most basic ideals.
1) You say racism was an important factor in the Japanese-American internment during World War II, but you argue that nativism played a bigger role. So who was more responsible for this nativism-the government or the people?
I don’t think I argue that nativism played a “bigger role,” just that racism wasn’t the sole cause, which is the way it has traditionally been viewed. Also, you have to factor in national security fears and hysteria. As far as who was more responsible for the nativism, it’s a chicken-and-egg situation. In the final analysis, while there was deep-rooted resentment of the ethnic Japanese community on the West Coast, I think the government was more to blame. After the December 1941 attack on Pearl Harbor by the Japanese, Secretary of the Navy Frank Knox announced – incorrectly – that there had been fifth-column work involved in the bombing. Six weeks later, the Roberts Commission report, which formally investigated the attack, concluded – equally incorrectly, it would later be proven – that the Japanese-Hawaiian community had engaged in espionage. Knox’s statements and the Roberts Commission report further inflamed an already-hostile public.
2) Manufacturing Hysteria is the title. Who exactly is manufacturing this hysteria and what kind of hysteria do you mean?
The hysteria is manufactured by the government and is directed against one or more minority groups. In the run-up to World War I, for example, the government whipped the American public into a froth with a calculated program of propaganda aimed at Germans and German-Americans. Soon, all dissenters were stigmatized, and any opposition to the war became synonymous with disloyalty and even sedition. Creating fear and then exploiting that fear, the government used the “threat” of these groups to justify a larger crackdown on civil liberties and a suppression of dissent.
Since World War I, this pattern has played out repeatedly in times of real or exaggerated crisis. Democratic and Republican administrations alike have scapegoated “dangerous” minorities – be they ethnic, racial, political, religious, or sexual – citing them as the excuse for using a variety of lawful and unlawful methods to stifle opposition and curb civil liberties, most often in the name of national security, but in at least one case, for economic reasons.
3) Are the methods used today to stifle opposition and curb civil liberties different from what they were, say, a century ago?
Not really, except that they’ve become much more sophisticated. Both legal and illegal tools have always been employed, including intimidation, surveillance, secrecy, and legislation. Intimidation has always been one of the most effective ways of stifling dissent. That hasn’t changed. Surveillance is now more insidious than ever. Obama promised transparent government, but once he took office, secrecy became all too prevalent. And when it comes to legislation, just remember that the Alien Enemies Act, the Espionage Act, and the Patriot Act are all still on the books.
From this perspective, the recent excesses of the Bush administration after 9/11 were no anomaly. Although the Bush government went far beyond what many people thought possible, those extremes were a difference of degree, not kind.
4) “Democracy requires vigilance,” you say. But how exactly are Americans supposed to stay vigilant?
Good question. I’d say to begin by not believing everything we read or hear. We need to question. We need to apply critical thinking. It’s essential to become better informed. Look for other sources than the mainstream media, which is mostly complicit in the hysteria process. There are exceptions, of course (people like Bob Herbert, Paul Krugman, Bill Moyers), but for the most part there’s a conspiracy of silence among mainstream journalists. They’re so deeply invested in the system that even if they catch on to the big lie, the risks of telling the truth are too great. So consult other sources, like The Nation, to name just one example. The Nation has its own biases, of course, but the important thing is that it questions, and that’s what we, as citizens, need to do.
5) You say that while we’ve managed to overcome every challenge to democracy so far, we could eventually reach a point of no return. What would it take for us to reach that point?
Well, I don’t have a crystal ball, but there are a couple of things to keep in mind. One is that we mistakenly tend to regard democracy as a given. There’s a dangerous complacency there. Just look at Weimar Germany. We also have to be aware of the tendency to scapegoat minorities in times of crisis, because denying the civil liberties of any specific group, even in the name of national security, is the first step toward curtailing the civil liberties of all.
It’s alarming how willing we are to give up our rights, but it’s happened over and over again. In times of crisis, people go along with the infringements on their civil liberties because the government tells us it’s for our own good. So, in the end, it’s up to the people. Are we willing to give up democracy for what we’re told is security but may actually be authoritarianism or worse?
Buy the book: Skylight Books, Powell’s, Amazon
Jay Feldman‘s website is http://www.jfeldman.com.
*Photo courtesy of ilovememphis.