Fear of the Known and the Unknown
“So, first of all, let me assert my firm belief that the only thing we have to fear is… fear itself — nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance. In every dark hour of our national life, a leadership of frankness and of vigor has met with that understanding and support of the people themselves, which is essential to victory. And I am convinced that you will again give that support to leadership in these critical days.”
– Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Inaugural Address, 4 March 1933
As the general election looms on the autumnal horizon, with each of the two major parties reluctantly, albeit inexorably approaching the certainty of formal nomination, the uniqueness of Election 2016 becomes ever clearer. The “fear factor” of this year’s campaign is self-evident as never before, but for very different reasons.
On the one hand, with respect to the presumptive Republican nominee, there is the fear of the unknown — the fear of a candidate who has never before sought nor held political office. About as much is known about Donald J. Trump as is not known. We know that his business experience has enabled him to become cozy with politicians in both parties, because his dealings in commercial real estate and development on the grandiose scale of the projects he has undertaken necessitate his doing so, in order to gain the requisite permits for such pursuit. Yet, as public as his persona has been, his political core has been characterized by an enigmatic and indiscernible philosophy impossible to pigeon-hole with any degree of certainty. What is known about “the Donald” is that he is, at his core, a committed and practical capitalist in the truest sense of the word, which is more than can be said of both of the Democrats still vying for that party’s nomination.
On the other hand, with respect to the presumptive Democrat nominee, there is the fear of the known — the fear of a candidate who has become all too familiar during the last quarter century. We know all too well of Hillary Rodham Clinton’s arms distance relationship with the truth, of her own questionable financial dealings associated with cattle futures, of her time spent with the Rose Law firm, and with regards to excessive honoraria from speeches given to Wall Street interests, the substance of which she has refused to divulge. We know of her overt and clandestine attacks against multiple women who have alleged sexual improprieties and outright assaults on the part of her husband, and we know of her many ethical violations which range from her being fired by the Watergate investigative committee to her illegal handling of official e-mails during her tenure as Secretary of State, the latter being the subject of an ongoing criminal investigation by the FBI. We know of questionable campaign contributions by foreign interests, which transcend the respective campaigns of both her and her husband’s, and have now reached into the incumbent governor of Virginia, Terry McAuliffe, who once managed both of their presidential campaigns and was in charge of raising money for each of the Clintons.
Essentially, the fall election will come down to that which is feared most by the nation’s electorate. Will the nation ultimately elect a candidate who scares them for what is not known, as in the case of Donald Trump, or will the nation ultimately elect a candidate who scares them for what is known, as in the case of Hillary Clinton? No one can know at this point in time, but perhaps the thirty- second president, Franklin D. Roosevelt, said it best, when he referred to a “leadership of frankness and of vigor (that) has met with that understanding and support of the people, themselves,” when it comes to dealing with such fears of the known and unknown, which is the strange milieu of the 2016 Presidential Election.
-Drew Nickell, 24 May 2016
© 2016 by Drew Nickell, all rights reserved.