Time to Set Aside Childish Things
In case you missed it, David Brooks had a cogent critique of the homeland-security hysteria in the NY Times the other day:
In a mature nation, President Obama could go on TV and say, “Listen, we’re doing the best we can, but some terrorists are bound to get through.” But this is apparently a country that must be spoken to in childish ways.
It does seem that we have become a nation of pansies when it comes to terrorism. It’s curious because we don’t expect the same paternalism when it comes to protecting us from other threats—guns, say, or automobiles. But when it comes to airplanes and violent Islamic extremists, there is apparently no limit to the indignities we will suffer.
Case in point: Fred Barnes, executive editor of the Weekly Standard, on FOX on Dec. 29, 2009:
“I agree with Senator Dianne Feinstein [who] said the other day that, look, if you’re going to err in the war on terrorism, err on the side of overreacting rather than under-reacting. The Bush administration’s policy was to overreact. It seems like the Obama policy is to under-react.”
It takes my breath away, it really does.
Terrorists depend upon overreaction to be effective. They can never match their first-world enemies in weaponry or budget, so they target small, psychologically resonant targets to achieve outsized impact. They did it again on Christmas day over Detroit. What Mr. Barnes seems to have forgotten is that they did not succeed. Or did they?
Mike said on January 04, 2010 at 6:15 pm
Funny you should write that! Just this afternoon, I wrote about this over-reaction on Huffington Post:
Modern terrorism cannot exist practically without a media bent on reporting news in the most sensational manner possible. Without a sense of perspective, every minor incident becomes a crisis and, in turn, a political football.
Hazards exist all around us and in most cases, there is very little we can do to prevent them. It should be understood that the goal of terrorism is to have a extreme negative impact on the day to day lives of the public. And ultimately, the long term aim is to force the target of terrorism to create a restrictive and intolerable police state. Basically turning a free state into a virtual prison for all of its citizens.
People, of course, have a right to know about potential dangers and what they can do- as individuals- but that should not include a daily dose of fear-mongering.
Krups said on January 05, 2010 at 10:28 am
Modern terrorism cannot exist practically without a media bent on reporting news in the most sensational manner possible if press would stop publishing their acts or at least not making so much buzz around them I think terrorism acts frequency will decrease.
Amanda Ripley said on January 06, 2010 at 4:56 pm
Mike, I totally agree. I’ve been thinking about your post… How much of the current overreaction is owned solely by the media? We know a good deal of it is being exploited by politicians. But what about cable TV? What do the American people actually think about this? It’s very hard to know. And more to the point, how do we change this culture of media hysteria? Because you’re right—it amplifies terrorist attacks. We need to have freedom of the press. But the competitive pressures of today’s media marketplace reward hysteria and punish nuance…
Allan said on April 22, 2010 at 10:30 am
People, of course, have a right to know about potential dangers and what they can do- as individuals- but that should not include a daily dose of fear-mongering.
Gap Year said on May 25, 2010 at 5:20 pm
Hazards exist all around us and in most cases, there is very little we can do to prevent them. It should be understood that the goal of terrorism is to have a extreme negative impact on the day to day lives of the public.