Can government pose a threat to a society's way of life? This is a rhetorical question and it is hopefully obvious to everyone reading that yes, government can pose a threat to a society's way of life. Off the top of my head, the three biggest threats are other governments, one's own government, and malcontents like terrorists, subversives, and the like. If one is concerned about the vibrancy of their way of life, they ought to pay attention to the threats posed by these risks and implement security measures appropriate to the risks.
Appropriate to the risks. Those four words are a qualifier that I wrote about the notion of introducing security measures against risks. Right now, as in many times in the past, security of our way of life dominates much of the population's discourse and consideration. But we have strayed into a most threatening arena where the notion of security is unchallenged and unqualified, intentionally so. Many attempts to introduce qualifiers into the discourse of security are rejected outright, even to the point of accusing those who suggest we rethink security as being anti-security or even pro-terrorist!
Security is not a switch that is either on or off. We are not either "secure" or "not secure." It just doesn't work that way. Security, true security and not just window dressing facades that look like security, entails rejecting those ideas that sound or look good but in reality don't really make a difference and choosing those systems that are effective and efficient, regardless of how glamorous they are. This is easy to say, perhaps even easy to agree with, but when it comes time to agree that putting anti-missile defense systems on commercial aircraft is a waste of money or that terrorist watch list-based databases for crossing-checking flyer lists against are bad ideas, let's see how many decision makers have the integrity to do so.
In an infinitely rich economy, such choices (well, the database once is always a bad one, for other reasons) wouldn't necessarily have to be made. But we have a finite amount of money to spend on security so we have to be efficient about it. Yes, Stinger missiles are a theoretical risk, but even in a worst case scenario, they would take down a plane with a couple hundred people in it. No one likes to make decisions with a calculus of human life, but we have to consider it in this way, at least partly. To input such a missile defense system would cost billions. Once we look at the risk of Stinger attacks closer, we realize that while it is a theoretical risk, the actual risks are much much lower. Comparatively, it is unlikely that we would be attacked in such a way when so many other options are available that offer greater likelihoods of success and higher casualties. The billions spent on such systems would be much better spent on other measures that protect against threats with higher probabilities of happening. (Don't believe me on this analysis? Check out what the RAND think tank says about it.)
We can't protect against every attack. This fact itself is the entire reason why anti-terrorist activities should only partly be focused on beefing up security, intel gathering, and interdiction of individuals. As long as there are people who want to attack us, attacks are possible. We need to continue working to build a world were these sorts of people are rarer. Perhaps it is futile or impossible, but it must be tried and tried again. I'm not talking about a "we are the world" utopia either. Just a world built on different principles or the consistent application of the sound principles that modern society is built on. It would not require a radically different way of thinking, just a re-organization of our priorities and a willingness to make adjustments.
But I'm veering totally off course from what I wanted to write about at the beginning, so allow me to just jump back to it. What I wanted to say here before my run-up ran away in other directions was that we mustn't forget that the government poses risks to our way of life, inherently. It is powerful and the ultimate arbiter of the formal structure (legally, at least) of our society and thus the risks are grave if the government should stray off course. We are entrusting our government now to make us safer from terrorists, but we are perhaps forgetting that the government itself can be a risk even greater than the terrorists pose. Terrorism really is not much of a threat at all. I'm not saying it is NO threat, just that it isn't a very big one, at least directly.
Terrorists, by definition are weak. They resort to the tactics they use because they do not have the power to engage in military, economic, or cultural warfare. They use the outrageous tactics they do because of the emotional impact of such tactics and the momentum such tactics can impart. I don't know what Osama's desires and intentions are, but I'm fairly certain that he entertained no illusions of killing all Americans or invading our country or waging a bombing campaign that would cause the US population to convert to Wahhabi Islam and cause the Constitution to dissolve. Rather, (again, this is just my conjecture, but I think it is reasonable) he probably hoped to set of a series of events that would cause great divisions throughout the modern world, hopefully drawing the United States into war in the Middle East and weakening the cohesive bonds of western civilization. Divide and conquer. He perhaps hoped to create a climate of fear and uncertainty in the US that would drive the government to enact policies that divide society. OBL doesn't have the power to destroy America; but he has the power (as a potential) to incite us to destroy it for him. It is our obligation to be aware of this and subvert these efforts, even though it means we need to oppose the current policies and good-intentions of the Bush presidency.
Our government has been, is, and will continue to make policies and decisions that are not good for the country, in spite of being touted as such. I have no doubts about the positive intentions of the President and his advisors. But they are part of the government and as such not suitable for analyzing oversteps on their parts. It is their job to push the boundaries and it is our job as citizens to keep them in line. George Bush likes to tout his idea of an "ownership society" with regard to Social Security. I suggest that we realize we currently and always have had such an ownership society because we are the stockholders in our government.
The government is there for us, not the other way around. They are doing their best, but they are blinded to several realities as a result of their positions. They are unable to assess security measures in our current climate because they fear being soft on terrorism or are afraid that the effective measures aren't visible enough or are afraid to admit that some of the measures they've put in place are just window dressing or are unwilling to give up some of the powers that they've taken, even though those powers are antithetical to the role of government in the United States of America we all hold so dear.
It is up to us to change this climate. We need to stop accepting such window dressing. We need to reject the government demands for more power in the name of security. We need to be talking to each other about this. We need to be writing letters to the editors and to our congressmen (real letters in these cases, not email). I want to be safe, but I want to be free even more.
Another way to think of this is to consider that we have to just choose whether we'd rather live free or live under security. Me, I'd rather live free, even if that means it is easier for someone to attack us. For if we subject ourselves to a security state that insulates us from attacks yet in the process deprives us of our freedoms, we hand the terrorists the gold medal with garnish. That's a perverse rationale generated from the same bin as the "burn the village to save it" mantra. If we do not insist on protections of freedoms that are vital to the very causes and way of life we claim to be defending, we will only succeed in destroying ourselves before the bad guys do. "You can't fire me, I quit!" works in a labor economy but it translates into "You can't destroy us, that's OUR job!" in the realm of security run amok. If we do not preserve with every once of our being those freedoms, ideals, and forms of governance (with all its checks on authority and balances and transparency) that make our nations worthy of believing in and fighting for, even if we protect ourselves from future attack, we no longer are protecting what we started to protect. We risk smothering ourselves as we hanging on tighter.
There is nothing wrong with choosing to live freer than more secure. This does not mean that one chooses to be attacked. It simply means that we recognize that terrorists are a threat both internally and externally. Externally as bombers and internally as demonized forces that are used to move society in directions that it doesn't have to be or shouldn't be moved in. I'm not saying that no security improvements should be more nor am I suggesting that we stop trying to capture those who seek to harm us. I am suggesting that we not do them any favors and stop harming ourselves.
We also need to recognize that terrorism just isn't that big of a threat. Abolishing our freedoms affects every single one of us every single day for the rest our lives and the lives of those yet to be born. Bloated government with too much power is a risk for every single citizen and brings us one step close to living in a society very very very similar to those societies we were opposed to during the Cold War. Maintaining our freedoms with securing the obvious weaknesses and strengthening our efforts to stop both the current crop of terrorists as well as conditions that give rise to future terrorists will protect us from almost all attacks. And even if we are attacked again and even if such attacks could have been prevented by rescinding our cultural freedoms, we could proudly and defiantly claim that even if the terrorists can still find ways to attack us from time to time, they cannot destroy that which makes us great. But if we demolish the freedoms that give us pride in our country and submit to a government with absolute power, no transparency, and little accountability, even if we are never attacked again, we have lost the war against the terrorists.
The government is not our enemy. But without careful checks coming from the population, it can overstep and cause problems. A gentle giant, powerful beyond belief and fully capable of doing what we need, but also capable of unintentionally stepping on its masters. Once control is ceded, it is very very difficult to get it back. It is our civic responsibility, passed down over hundreds of years from the Founding Fathers, to resist the temptation to blindly follow the advice of the government. They do not know best. We must fight and protect ourselves against all enemies, both the obvious and the unintentional.
Posted by Nutrimentia at February 16, 2005 10:34 AM | TrackBack