COLUMN: The security vs. freedom debate
Ever since 9-11, a great debate has been raging over security vs. freedom.
That act of terrorism in 2001 instilled fear in this nation, prompting many to accept more limits on their freedom in exchange for the veneer of increased security.
To say the Bush administration exploited that fear to increase government power would be an understatement. But manipulating public fear to increase government power predates Bush — it has happened all throughout history as foes real and imagined have been used as foils for more government power.
It’s the “boogyman” syndrome; create an illusion of an enemy or magnify the power of a real foe so as to justify more power and more money to fight back.
When the Soviet Union was a U.S. enemy during the long Cold War following WWII, its non-military power was in decline the entire time. When I first traveled to the Soviet Union in 1985, I was shocked at the level of poverty I saw and the rot of economic decline. It was clear even then that outside of a nuclear threat, the Soviet Union was a paper tiger and could never compete on the large world stage economically.
Despite knowing about the Soviet’s weak status, the U.S. government portrayed that nation as a major economic, political and military threat right up to the day it fell apart in 1991.
Today, it’s Islamic extremists that we fear. But while their individual acts of terrorism create fear, they in no way threaten to bring down our government. They’re too small, too weak and too distant to ever threaten a U.S. takeover.
What threatens to bring down our government is not some terrorist hiding in a cave in Pakistian, but rather the manipulation of fear to increase the power of our own government over its own people.
Unfortunately, a lot of people have fallen for it. Ask yourself these questions:
--Am I willing to allow the government to surreptitiously listen in on all my phone calls?
--Am I willing to allow the government to search my property, including online computer communication?
--Am I willing to have my travel within the U.S. tracked or limited by the government?
If you answered “yes” to those questions, then you value security over freedom and have fallen victim to the cult of fear that was created in the shadow of 9-11.
We’ve all heard that justified with something like this: “Well, if it keeps me and my family safe I don’t care if they (the government) read all my emails.”
Really? Are you so scared and fearful that you would be willing to allow the government to intrude that deep into your life? And do you really trust your own government to do the right thing with the information it collects on you?
In many ways, the U.S. has moved several steps toward the kind of activity we used to criticize about the old Soviet Union. The Soviets and many of their allies always encouraged people to spy on each other, neighbors on neighbors, family on family, children on parents.
To a lesser extent, the U.S. is now doing the same thing with the drumbeat of “report suspicious activity.”
But what if, in the name of national security, the U.S. mandated that all public schools instruct students to report on “suspicious activity” in their own homes. Would that be acceptable?
Terrorism cannot conquer the U.S. But the fear of terrorism can stifle our liberties and over time, erode the foundation on which our nation is built.
It’s time to stop the fear-mongering and the illogical belief that it’s OK to limit liberty in the name of national security.
Mike Buffington is editor of The Jackson Herald. He can be reached at mike@mainstreetnews.com.
To say the Bush administration exploited that fear to increase government power would be an understatement. But manipulating public fear to increase government power predates Bush — it has happened all throughout history as foes real and imagined have been used as foils for more government power.
It’s the “boogyman” syndrome; create an illusion of an enemy or magnify the power of a real foe so as to justify more power and more money to fight back.
When the Soviet Union was a U.S. enemy during the long Cold War following WWII, its non-military power was in decline the entire time. When I first traveled to the Soviet Union in 1985, I was shocked at the level of poverty I saw and the rot of economic decline. It was clear even then that outside of a nuclear threat, the Soviet Union was a paper tiger and could never compete on the large world stage economically.
Despite knowing about the Soviet’s weak status, the U.S. government portrayed that nation as a major economic, political and military threat right up to the day it fell apart in 1991.
Today, it’s Islamic extremists that we fear. But while their individual acts of terrorism create fear, they in no way threaten to bring down our government. They’re too small, too weak and too distant to ever threaten a U.S. takeover.
What threatens to bring down our government is not some terrorist hiding in a cave in Pakistian, but rather the manipulation of fear to increase the power of our own government over its own people.
Unfortunately, a lot of people have fallen for it. Ask yourself these questions:
--Am I willing to allow the government to surreptitiously listen in on all my phone calls?
--Am I willing to allow the government to search my property, including online computer communication?
--Am I willing to have my travel within the U.S. tracked or limited by the government?
If you answered “yes” to those questions, then you value security over freedom and have fallen victim to the cult of fear that was created in the shadow of 9-11.
We’ve all heard that justified with something like this: “Well, if it keeps me and my family safe I don’t care if they (the government) read all my emails.”
Really? Are you so scared and fearful that you would be willing to allow the government to intrude that deep into your life? And do you really trust your own government to do the right thing with the information it collects on you?
In many ways, the U.S. has moved several steps toward the kind of activity we used to criticize about the old Soviet Union. The Soviets and many of their allies always encouraged people to spy on each other, neighbors on neighbors, family on family, children on parents.
To a lesser extent, the U.S. is now doing the same thing with the drumbeat of “report suspicious activity.”
But what if, in the name of national security, the U.S. mandated that all public schools instruct students to report on “suspicious activity” in their own homes. Would that be acceptable?
Terrorism cannot conquer the U.S. But the fear of terrorism can stifle our liberties and over time, erode the foundation on which our nation is built.
It’s time to stop the fear-mongering and the illogical belief that it’s OK to limit liberty in the name of national security.
Mike Buffington is editor of The Jackson Herald. He can be reached at mike@mainstreetnews.com.
If we are to learn from the Bush 9/11 example, we had better find a way to put a stop to the total economic destruction in the name of redistribution and economic justice envisioned by the Obama Thugocracy. Unfortunately, the democrat followers of Obama don't even realize what they are being used for and many of the republicans in Congress are so isolated from the real world that they don't see the full potential either.