Posted by Damozel | At The Moderate Voice, centrist blogger Joe Gandelman discusses a recent report concerning a possible---Christ knows we've heard this one before--- plot by Al Qaeda to attack US targets (in this case shopping malls during the Christmas season). (TMV) Gandelman is concerned about the effect of the "political contamination" of the issue and its perceived (his word, not mine) exploitation by the Bush Administration on public vigilance. "A jaded public could mean a serious warning could be shrugged off when and if it comes." (TMV)
Exactly. And this is a problem for everyone. The issue of national security belongs to the American people; it is not the property of the Bush Administration, the Republican party, Michelle Malkin, or the far right.
Ironically but also worryingly, the rhetoric from the Right has become so extreme (and, frankly, so bigoted) that it's actually undermined the cause its proponents purport to be promoting.
There's little reasoned discussion going on of how we as citizens should actually prepare for a terrorist attack and how we should respond if one occurs. Instead the discussion is dominated by bloviation, fear-mongering, and hate-mongering from the Far Right and gruff, contemptuous dismissal from everyone else.
This isn't good for anyone. It's certainly not good for liberals or Democrats, since by failing to meet the anti-Muslim rhetoric on the far right with solutions that bring communities (including American Muslims) together, we tacitly cooperate in the GOP's preemption of the discussion.
The fact is, the American public, by ceding to the Bush Administration the power and responsibility for dealing with the terror threat, has landed itself (lazily, credulously, tragically) in a state of what I believe psychologists call "learned helplessness." When warned of an impending threat, we don't have a clue what to do.
We missed our chance after 911 to take responsibility for the safety of our communities, and in doing so lost the opportunity to sustain the brief period of solidarity and sense of national community. We allowed the government to pour our tax dollars into the Iraq war rather than require it to use its vast resources to prepare its citizens to deal in a reasoned, effective manner with the threat of an attack and---if worst comes to worst---its aftermath. Americans should be trained in civil defense the way we used to be.
This was a shameful lapse. No government can live up to a guarantee to keep its people safe; and no government can even try without also infringing individual privacy and liberty. As my favorite founding father Ben Franklin said, "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." As no less an old-style Republican than Dwight Eisenhower said, "If you want total security, go to prison. There you're fed, clothed, given medical care and so on. The only thing lacking... is freedom."" I think Franklin and Eisenhower would have agreed that a disaffected, timorous, security-begging citizenry which surrenders its freedom to procure a false sense of security will in fact eventually be left with neither.
Certain representatives of the far right would have us believe that the surrender of a few unimportant liberties---such as the right to be free from government oversight---is the price we must pay to avoid dying horribly (or seeing other Americans die horribly) in a terrorist attack. After 911 we acquiesced---or rather, our representatives acquiesced for us---- without a principled exploration of our other options.
Despite the bloviation against "big government" from the Right, Republicans have placed the entire responsibility for national security in the hands of the federal government and the GOP candidates are making promises to keep us safe the major part of their platform.
Why have Democrats not responded with plans that would help to mitigate public reliance on the federal government (along with the terrible, ennervating passivity of doing so) by preparing communities to deal with an attack? Isn't part of the politics of fear the sense that if something were to happen, we wouldn't know ourselves how to respond? Wouldn't everyone be better off by facing up to the probability of an eventual attack (even if unsuccessful)? Shouldn't we insist on being educated about the worst case scenarios and about the best way for a community to deal with such a situation? Or---with 911 and the feelings of community it aroused so far behind us----is it already too late?
Thomas Jefferson wrote: "The price of freedom is eternal vigilance." Democrats shouldn't have permitted, or go on permitting, the likes of Malkin, Coulter, Limbaugh, O'Reilly, or far right bloggers of hysterical bent to frame the issue for the public. To take responsibility of national security doesn't require fear and hatred of Islam or those who follow it; it requires us simply to remember that there are bad and deluded people in every population. At the end of the day, we need to realize that technology has increased the risk of such attacks from all groups that wish the rest of us harm. (You'd think the above-referenced far-right bloviators had never heard of the Oklahoma City bombings or the very-far-right groups within the US which, prior to 911, seemed to be gearing up to launch a series of terrorist attacks on their own people. I remember being relieved after 911 to learn that the attack hadn't originated from an American organization. Better anything than that, I'd have said at the time.)
Instead of using these failures to taunt the opposition, perhaps we in the center and on the left should be urging our fellow citizens to demand solutions that would give us a sense that---if worst comes to worst---we can actually do something. Think of London during the Blitz and the way in which the British public rose to meet them. Think of Americans at home during WWII preparing themselves for the worst. Wouldn't it be more productive for us to build up communities of citizens prepared to step in and assist in police and rescue operations if a credible threat develops or even if worst comes to worst? Wouldn't we all feel more secure if we faced up to the threat and considered in advance how to respond? Isn't democracy about empowering the people rather than the federal government?
Why aren't we redefining the meaning of "soft on terror"?
It's demoralizing to feel that we have no options but to sit passively on the sidelines hoping that the government---even through means that would disgust most sane, non-cowardly Americans if they were forced to know too much about them---will take care of us. Passivity makes cowards of us all. It is also dangerous, since with each threat that doesn't materialized we become more blase about the next.
Memeorandum has discussion of Joe Gandelman's piece here.
http://www.memeorandum.com/071108/p108#a071108p108
RELATED BN-POLITICS POSTINGS
GAO: Good News Regarding the Security of U.S. Ports?
Guantanamo Whistleblower Condemns Proceedings
Olbermann: Chertoff's Internal Terror Alerts.
Britain's New Security Minister Predicts 15 Year Struggle Against Terror; British Muslims Speak Out Against Extremism.
Advice on the Foiled Bombings from Two (British-Born) Pundits---Hitchens at Slate: "Don't Mince Words"; Andrew Sullivan: "Stay Calm and Carry On."
The Threat of Terrorism in the UK.
The Terror Detainee Case: What the Blawggers are Saying and a Peek at Some Documents.
Two London Car Bombs "Off the Radar."
LINKED
New FBI Warning: Al Qaeda Plans U.S. Mall Attacks Holiday Season (TMV)
From the Desk of Donald Rumsfeld (WaPo)
FBI warns of possible shopping mall attacks (Reuters)
Comments