I have just finished reading some readers' comments on a story done by Time Magazine regarding the liberty vs. security debate. The common theme of the readers involves the current tension between the government's necessity of maintaining certain secrets in the name of national security, and the implied duty of the news media to report facts and inform the public. This is truly a debate that requires much deeper analysis than the current blithering of loudmouth and unprincipled politicians and their fear "mongering".
I cannot agree with any media outlet divulging secret information, even if it is passed on the them. However, our current "state of war" in not unlike that of Orwell's "1984", in which the country is in a constant state of war against an elusive enemy. This "gray area" is where we are now. The major difference between reality and fiction is that a serious threat exists. The real debate is over how much of our freedom and privacy we are willing to relinquish in order to "keep tabs" on those that would bring the innocent harm.
I want to offer a simple analogy. Let's take the simple case of a crime ridden area of a city or town. A frustrated population complains about the crime and the news media howls. Businesses suffer, lives are lost, and fear is rampant among the residents. A beleaguered Mayor may decide to impose a curfew on certain people (perhaps an age group identified as being the cause of most of the strife). The Mayor may also institute a "zero-tolerance" policy on such "horrible acts" as loitering. Now you have a fearful population feeling placated because the "government" has acted. However, while little Timmy cannot walk home from a visit to his grandmother after 10:00 pm, for example, without the threat of being cuffed and thrown in jail; the criminals that have no real fear of order and law are still free to roam about, only now in the shadows. The crime subsides briefly, but soon the limelight is off the issue and the resources sent to enforce these policies are deployed elsewhere. This is an infantile example of my point in which citizens are willing to sacrifice their own freedom and comfort for an "alleged" sense of calm and security. This is not much different than our color coded system of terror threat that was all the rage only a few years ago.
It is important that we don't minimize the threat of a terrorist attack by actually comparing it to neighborhood crime. However, the point of the preceding example is the culture of fear that is bred by politicians and lack of personal accountability and action on the part of our government. This Country was founded on people who stood up to their fears. The signers of the Declaration of Independence, by there very concurrence, were actually committing treason against their "Mother England". Like today, this was punishable by death. In the words of Edward Abbey "A patriot must be ready to defend his country against his government". America's founders had adopted Mr. Abbey's philosophy. Today, the overall population seems to have fallen blindly behind an administration that has used fear as it tactic for driving public policy.
The real thing to fear is complacency. That complacency that allows us to sacrifice our privacy, that disallows voice of dissent, that permits the govenment, our government, to stampede over the Constitution for alleged isecurity. They claim they can make our reasons for fear disappear. Almost everywhere you look this administration loves fear. Several examples for digestion: "If gays marry, families will fall apart"; "If we don't fix Social Security, it will implode"; "If we cannot collect data from your (pick one: phone records, medical history, library records, financial transactions) than the terrorists will win". This complacency also has allowed all three branches of government to bolster corporate protection while diminishing the ability of consumers and victims to air their grievances. This is vital, as it demonstrates who is really "pulling the strings". One example, "The health care crisis is due to medical malpractice lawsuits". This statement is made so simple, yet it is far more complex than hearing George "The Village Idiot" Bush spew it from his wretched mouth. I won't go into this issue, but just know that behind every lie that this administration has proffered, someone profits, and profits well. If you want to learn the truth about the cost of complacency, just follow the money trail.
Just take the time to see who benefits from the actions of government (ie. War benefits Halliburton; catastrophe benefits big oil). Nothing changes in politics unless someone at the top will profit. The best way for our government to manipulate the people is through fear; fear that is financed care of corporations and very wealthy donors.
I'll leave you with one more quote from Adam Michnik, "As a rule, dictatorships guarantee safe streets and terror of the doorbell. In democracy the streets may be unsafe after dark, but the most likely visitor in the early hours will be the milkman." Let us not end up fearing the milkman.
