Security From What?
In response to an earlier post, several respondents suggested that elaboration on a formula of security based on national self-confidence rather than based on fear would be helpful. This has been the task of years and several books. But the essence is this: Whereas the perceived Cold War threat was based on the fear of Soviet encroachment into Europe and the threat of a nuclear exchange, threats to security and stability in the 21st century include the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, viral pandemics, failed states, climate change, mass migrations, jobs lost to globalization, and a host of similar new realities. These threats cannot be solved by military means and they cannot be solved by a single nation alone. Thus, we are led to the need for a new era of internationalism, the creation of new cooperative alliances similar to that of 1945-48, and a more inclusive understanding of what it takes to make us secure.
The fear that Ms. Huffington very rightly warns us to expect in yet another national election year, the Rove formula it might be called, reduces all threats to terrorism and claims that the Republicans, the Daddy Party, is more muscular in dealing with terrorists than the Democrats, the Mommy Party. Security is reduced to biology: testosterone versus estrogen. This would be laughable were it not for the fact that it has worked in the past. And it is not accidental that Bill Clinton won his elections during the interim between the Cold War and the war on terrorism and that John Kerry was defeated by "swift-boating".
Democrats have relied on the argument that this is delusional, fear-mongering promoted by commercial interests and cynical right-wingers. But this has not worked very well. What will work well, in my judgment after working this side of the street for three decades, is to broaden the meaning of security (as I attempt to do in abbreviated form above). As someone once said, If you can't solve a problem, make it bigger. By making security bigger, thoughtful people can reduce the fear factor in politics and help Americans understand their true security interests again.
I love ya, Gary but only a career politician can put up a post saying that they're going to elaborate on their security ideas and then not suggest even one actual policy.
When people ask you to elaborate they don't want to know how you want to look at the problem, they want to know what it means. What new laws will be put into place. What old laws will be eliminated? How will it practically effect our lives?
June 12, 2008 10:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
The party has already proposed the policies Sen. Hart refers to. Our Democratic nominee, Barack Obama, has made some effort to frame our energy crisis as part of a larger national security problem, requiring drastic action. His campaign sees two substantial threats stemming from our dependence on Middle East oil. First global warming threatens the world with increased famine, droughts, flooding and territorial conflict resulting from continued climate change. Second, our continued presence in the Middle East continues to fund dangerous authoritarian regimes, destabilizes the entire region, and imperils the world's economic security, now so dependent on cheap energy.
Regarding the more visible perils of our continued military presence in the Middle East, Obama's Energy policy (pdf) claims, "not since the 1970s has America’s national security been so threatened by its energy insecurity, and, as we have learned the hard way over the past seven years, achieving energy security in the 21st century requires far more than simply expending our economic and political resources to keep oil flowing steadily out of unstable and even hostile countries and regions." This language re-frames the distant threat of Middle Eastern instability as a direct threat to our interests at home. Like Sen. Hart suggests, the Obama campaign is expanding the definition of "national security" to include these regional threats stemming from our energy policy. Global warming can -- and has been -- be included alongside more direct threats in the Middle East as a long term obstacle to our continued safety and prosperity.
Obama's energy policy, especially his cap-and-trade proposal, is a perfect example of a tangible policy proposal that addresses the new, broader definition of threats to our national security.
June 12, 2008 11:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
destor23,
Well said. That was the point in my reply to his earlier post.
I'm not quite as blunt as you are, but I replied again to this thread below.
He's talking platitudes, words without content.
FB
June 12, 2008 10:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with Destor. Much of this thread has turned into yet another exercise in abstract Democratic navel gazing and rhetorical meta-analysis. I think it would help to focus a bit more on specific, identifiable problems and proposed solutions to them. We don't need more of these endless ruminations on "framing".
June 12, 2008 11:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
A house divided cannot stand was true in mid-19th century America and it's true when the 'house' is a 21st century world.
"An era of internationalism" has been here for quite a while. The longer this country refuses to acknowledge that fact, the longer it will take and the harder it will be to solve the now indisputable problems confronting all of us.
June 12, 2008 10:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
The die has been cast.
From the January 29, 2004 Democratic debate:
---
Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts said during last night's Democratic presidential debate that the threat of terrorism has been exaggerated. "I think there has been an exaggeration," Mr. Kerry said when asked whether President Bush has overstated the threat of terrorism. "They are misleading all Americans in a profound way." ...
Sen. John Edwards, who was born in this state [NC] and has said he must win here, took the first opportunity to disagree with Mr. Kerry, the victor in both the binding Democratic contests held so far — the Iowa caucuses and the New Hampshire primary. "It's just hard for me to see how you can say there's an exaggeration when thousands of people lost their lives on September 11," Mr. Edwards said.
---
John Edwards, a pawn of "commercial interests and cynical right-wingers?" The problem is deeper than you think. When one Dem torpedoes another on a major issue then any talk about Swift Boats becomes minor.
How to discount a threat that, statistically, ranks somewhere beneath bath-tub slips and lightning strikes to the average American, without being excoriated by the fear-mongers like Edwards who prattle on about 9/11? Hart: We must "broaden the meaning of security" and "and help Americans understand their true security interests again."
Okay, let's start with Edwards.
June 12, 2008 11:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
You should end your initial post with: "...and that's why I endorsed Barrack Obama."
June 12, 2008 11:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
Even a billion dollar per year Pentagon budget ain't worth jack against 18 wild-eyed Saudi Arabians and a few boxcutters.
Tell John Edwards that 3,000 Americans die every MONTH on our highways and no one wants a Global War on Cars.
Soft power, energy as security, Mommy Party? Fine with me. Cuz this cowboy machismo crap has only made things worse.
June 12, 2008 2:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Senator Hart: Isn't the challenge in redefining security in the way that you do that we must remain "open" as a society and economically. While I agree with you, I think that's the aspect of not just building more StarWars initiatives and weapons that makes people nervous. How do we stay open to globalization and movement of people and ideas while not making ourselves more vulnerable? It's a tricky balance and I would be interested in your thoughts.
June 12, 2008 3:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Novel (and good) idea to broaden the meaning of security to include reality and all the issues that truly do influence security. :)
This grounded approach might well help Democrats reduce the power of the one-trick Republican-terrorist-fear-pony. It might also help, if during high-profile debates, Obama continues to bluntly call McCain on any fear-mongering.
Since nothing will help Americans resist fear-mongering more than a government that implements good solutions to security threats, naming those threats is good place to start.
I'm still optimistic about the future. But we are in the middle of two wars with a third looming? Globalization and ludicrous, greedy economic policy have combined to lower the average American's standard of living at lightening speed.
As recent congresses emptied the treasury, they did not feel it important effectively address any basic problems like health care or renewable energy.
In a climate of instability on many fronts, it is no mystery why Americans--with the help of the media-- are easily manipulated by fear. Sustained confidence that's resistant to fear is more likely when it's based on a stable foundation. A stable foundation must be re-built one brick at a time.
I think the most effective way to prevent future manipulation of public fear is for Americans to make sure those we elect to Congress and the presidency either deliver or leave.
June 12, 2008 4:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
This whole Daddy party vs Mommy party is interesting when you think of security. First, there's the practical matters of who usually takes the child to the doctor, who kisses the "boo boo," who the child calls out to after a nightmare, etc and so on. In the majority of households, the answer to all these questions is Mommy.
And not to downplay the power of testerone. But have you ever seen a woman after her child's been attacked? I know one lady who jumped into a fight with her son and the two of them fought his attacker. The notion that women aren't strong enough to protect America is patently false. And what's more is that this whole notion that Daddy is a better protecter than Mommy has to do with the sexist notion of what's proper and acceptable for women and what's not.
June 12, 2008 7:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Senator:
Thanks for responding to my reply to your earlier post.
"...threats to security and stability in the 21st century include the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, viral pandemics, failed states, climate change, mass migrations, jobs lost to globalization, and a host of similar new realities. These threats cannot be solved by military means and they cannot be solved by a single nation alone."
The above quote from your reply, while completely accurate, IMHO, still does not escape the fear-thing.
"Threats" is your word, used twice in the short quote above. Yes, the threats have changed since the Cold War; yes, less of them are subject to military solutions; yes, they cannot be solved by a single nation alone.
But all these "yeses" still don't address the threat-fear-courage-action dynamic that is at the core of national security issues.
Concretely, the threats change and the appropriate responses to those threats change; but the abstract model of national security remains the same.
For example, I assume you support your former colleague, Al Gore, in his global warming crusade. What tactic is he using? FEAR...fear of planetary extinction.
Please don't misunderstand me: I am not an advocate of FEAR. I'm just realistically analyzing the proposition that you and Huff have put forward.
And just as she refuted her own argument in the words from her own post, so, too, have you refuted yours in the quote I cite above.
FB
June 12, 2008 9:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good point. We have nothing to fear but the fearmongers.
And while we're at it:
(1) there is no such thing as security, and
(2) being concerned about something that can never be realized is a waste of time.
June 13, 2008 9:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
Good point, senator. The same thought occured to me when I came across this:
John McCain Doesn't Know How to Use a Computer
An increasing threat to US security are Chinese and other hackers (especially as more and more people across the globe get fed up with US foreign policy). And the US citizens are considering electing a president who doesn't know how to use a computer??? (Also, not knowing how to use a computer, he must be really well informed...)
June 12, 2008 11:36 PM | Reply | Permalink