What has terrorism done to the United States? National security has become the new PC
I was recently discussing this question with a friend of mine. Although I have not read many books on the subject, I know that this question has been explored much since 9/11, given that the state of politics in the US has grown more and more unstable since then and that all indicators point to increasing instability from now on.
Since 9/11, the main dialogue in your country has centered around escalating conflict around the world, especially as pertains to conflict that can spill over domestically. Sharp distinctions have been made between those taking different views; people have been getting pigeonholed into stereotypical roles more than any time I can remember since I became interested in Western politics. Although labels did exist before 9/11 and although they have become very defined in the past, it seems as though, given the imprinting of 9/11 on the American consciousness, different viewpoints are now accentuated like never before and there is diminishing room for actual debate and compromise. The context of 9/11 has provided a means for group think to take over - everyone blogs on their own internet sites with like-mided individuals that merely parrot what the other says; the media is for the most part silent and merely feeds the fire; even institutions such as universities are criticized for employing individuals that hold unfavourable views.
9/11 has now become the measuring stick by which someone's "loyalty" is gauged as high or low. Thus, it is not surprising that, given the pressure from the post 9/11 political context, political opinion must first be "loyal" before it is accepted into the public sphere. That is, political opinion must conform to the new political correctness which is centered around matters of national security. If a political opinion speaks out against the current developments in national security, it is labelled as disloyal or unpatriotic. Often, a certain label is attached to this (e.g. the disloyal leftist; leftists are disloyal). Thus, good political opinions are only those that agree with the status quo, "lest terrorists take advantage".
Any opinions that fall outside of the national security debate all together are on balance ignored; the diversity of issues in post 9/11 America has degraded because National Security is so pervasive. Global warming, economic issues (esp. peak oil), health issues, et al. have all degraded at the expense of dialogue in the context of national security.
If these issues are discussed, they are increasingly discussed in the context of national security. For example, bird flu is discussed as a national security issue; global warming is discussed as a threat to national security; oil dependence is relegated to talk about how much of a threat certain oil producers pose to national security (even though the biggest issue is whether those oil producers will be able to keep on producing). Even gay marriage and other social issues have found their way into the national security forum.
National security has become the new political correctness of our time. However, it is more pernicious than other forms of political correctness. Whereas other forms have often been used to weed out extremist and overly-radical views in the public discourse, this new political correctness is being used to stifle debate whereever it can; it is dominating the public discourse more than any other force and it is a hindrance to political freedom - something which makes democracy what it is. National security issues have become a threat to democratic discourse and debate.
Since 9/11, the main dialogue in your country has centered around escalating conflict around the world, especially as pertains to conflict that can spill over domestically. Sharp distinctions have been made between those taking different views; people have been getting pigeonholed into stereotypical roles more than any time I can remember since I became interested in Western politics. Although labels did exist before 9/11 and although they have become very defined in the past, it seems as though, given the imprinting of 9/11 on the American consciousness, different viewpoints are now accentuated like never before and there is diminishing room for actual debate and compromise. The context of 9/11 has provided a means for group think to take over - everyone blogs on their own internet sites with like-mided individuals that merely parrot what the other says; the media is for the most part silent and merely feeds the fire; even institutions such as universities are criticized for employing individuals that hold unfavourable views.
9/11 has now become the measuring stick by which someone's "loyalty" is gauged as high or low. Thus, it is not surprising that, given the pressure from the post 9/11 political context, political opinion must first be "loyal" before it is accepted into the public sphere. That is, political opinion must conform to the new political correctness which is centered around matters of national security. If a political opinion speaks out against the current developments in national security, it is labelled as disloyal or unpatriotic. Often, a certain label is attached to this (e.g. the disloyal leftist; leftists are disloyal). Thus, good political opinions are only those that agree with the status quo, "lest terrorists take advantage".
Any opinions that fall outside of the national security debate all together are on balance ignored; the diversity of issues in post 9/11 America has degraded because National Security is so pervasive. Global warming, economic issues (esp. peak oil), health issues, et al. have all degraded at the expense of dialogue in the context of national security.
If these issues are discussed, they are increasingly discussed in the context of national security. For example, bird flu is discussed as a national security issue; global warming is discussed as a threat to national security; oil dependence is relegated to talk about how much of a threat certain oil producers pose to national security (even though the biggest issue is whether those oil producers will be able to keep on producing). Even gay marriage and other social issues have found their way into the national security forum.
National security has become the new political correctness of our time. However, it is more pernicious than other forms of political correctness. Whereas other forms have often been used to weed out extremist and overly-radical views in the public discourse, this new political correctness is being used to stifle debate whereever it can; it is dominating the public discourse more than any other force and it is a hindrance to political freedom - something which makes democracy what it is. National security issues have become a threat to democratic discourse and debate.