David Foster Wallace on the Freedom vs. Security Discussion America Isn’t Having
“Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.” – Benjamin Franklin
The late author David Foster Wallace, well-known for works such as Infinite Jest and Consider the Lobster, is someone whom I have always heard spoken of in high regard, but have yet to read myself. In a 2007 issue of “The Atlantic,” he posed a question that I believe is even more relevant today than it was at the time of writing. The premise being, how much freedom are we willing to give up for the sake of security?
**Much thanks to Gordon Brander for posting a link to this via Twitter and alerting me to such a gem.**
Since 9/11 the United States has gone to gargantuan lengths to make America “safe again” – forming an entire new department (Homeland Security) with the sole purpose of protecting us from those who wish to do us and our country harm, expending nearly a trillion dollars and thousands of lives prosecuting 9 years of war on foreign soil, transforming a trip through the airport from a leisurely, even fun little jaunt into an infuriating backwash of security checks and buffoonery, forming a color code for how threatened you should feel on any given day, building fences, tightening border security, creating watch lists, monitoring phone conversations/websites/e-mail traffic, assassinating enemies by missiles shot from unmanned machines reigning down death from the skies…I’ll stop for the sake of time and sanity.
Turning our attention to the latest terrorist plot involving the young Nigerian Jihadist who set his crotch on fire (72 disappointed virgins) 30,000 feet above American soil as his Northwest Airlines flight made its way to Detroit, the renewed focus on increased security seems much like “the song that never ends.” Acting as a prophet, Wallace exposed some questions for discussion two years ago that bear repeating on this day as we decide how much more we are willing to give up in the name of security — take a look:
Are some things still worth dying for? Is the American idea* one such thing? Are you up for a thought experiment? What if we chose to regard the 2,973 innocents killed in the atrocities of 9/11 not as victims but as democratic martyrs, “sacrifices on the altar of freedom”?* In other words, what if we decided that a certain baseline vulnerability to terrorism is part of the price of the American idea? And, thus, that ours is a generation of Americans called to make great sacrifices in order to preserve our democratic way of life—sacrifices not just of our soldiers and money but of our personal safety and comfort?
In still other words, what if we chose to accept the fact that every few years, despite all reasonable precautions, some hundreds or thousands of us may die in the sort of ghastly terrorist attack that a democratic republic cannot 100-percent protect itself from without subverting the very principles that make it worth protecting?
Is this thought experiment monstrous? Would it be monstrous to refer to the 40,000-plus domestic highway deaths we accept each year because the mobility and autonomy of the car are evidently worth that high price? Is monstrousness why no serious public figure now will speak of the delusory trade-off of liberty for safety that Ben Franklin warned about more than 200 years ago? What exactly has changed between Franklin’s time and ours? Why now can we not have a serious national conversation about sacrifice, the inevitability of sacrifice—either of (a) some portion of safety or (b) some portion of the rights and protections that make the American idea so incalculably precious?
Here it is put another way by counterinsurgency expert David Kilcullen, author of The Accidental Guerrilla,
“The threat is that a zero-risk approach to terrorism, one that seeks to drive the chances of another 9/11 attack down to zero, might cause Western countries to take well-intentioned precautionary measures that would be so divisive internationally, and so repressive domestically, that we would end up destroying our way of life in order to save it, compromising freedoms and values to guard against a relatively remote risk.”
The problem with most of that national security apparatus is that it is full of technicians, but few philosophers. Everyone is figuring out how to fine-tune and employ the latest gadgets designed to scan, probe, listen, kill and protect, but no one is stepping back from the problem and asking whether we should spend as much time, blood and treasure doing the aforementioned in the first place. The very thought of such a question would be banished as unpatriotic by most. And yet, Wallace concludes,
In the absence of such a conversation, can we trust our elected leaders to value and protect the American idea as they act to secure the homeland? What are the effects on the American idea of Guantánamo, Abu Ghraib, Patriot Acts I and II, warrantless surveillance, Executive Order 13233, corporate contractors performing military functions, the Military Commissions Act, NSPD 51, etc., etc.? Assume for a moment that some of these measures really have helped make our persons and property safer—are they worth it? Where and when was the public debate on whether they’re worth it? Was there no such debate because we’re not capable of having or demanding one? Why not? Have we actually become so selfish and scared that we don’t even want to consider whether some things trump safety? What kind of future does that augur?
I don’t pretend to know the answers to these questions, but I do know that security has its costs and the discussion of whether or not they are always and forevermore worth bearing needs to take place. Thus far, it has not.
Popularity: 4% [?]
Related posts:
- A Falling US Dollar – Good for America?
- Why Goliath Can’t Win David’s Heart
- Friday Video: The Limits of Power – Andrew Bacevich
- What I’ve Been Reading (9.28.09)
Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.
8 comments
Wow. Now this is something worth thinking about. Although I suspect many would be instantly turned away, appalled even, by the over-arching question asked by Wallace. It is perhaps unfortunately ironic that while we, the common man, have the freedom to discuss such a question, that it would appear politically suicidal for our politicians to do so. Even though as you say it is a conversation that absolutely needs to take place more publicly from our leadership.
On some levels I could see how adopting such national principles could lead to a far more unified front among our countrymen. No longer would it be just our soldiers fighting an ideal, it would be an ideal fighting an ideal—and that would almost certainly strengthen our resolve.
Good stuff Cameron.
@ Greg,
Yes, the question caused me also to take a step back when I first encountered it. Yet, when examined for more than just a brief moment it begins to exhibit a great depth that demands further exploration.
Schaef,
Great discussion. I posted a link on my Twitter not long ago with a video Andrew Sullivan, also from the Atlantic, dicussing the exact same thing on an episode of HBO’s Real Time with Bill Maher. You can probably go to tweetmeme and search BadskiBlog and find it. He actually utilized the exact same car argument. I think the concept extends well beyond terrorism, although that is certainly one of the most glaring and pressing topics. Watch everytime someone gets murdered. Typically it is a young beautiful white female who gets the media coverage but that is another issue all together. Watch the frantic search for an explanation, something or someone to blame. It was the killer’s parents fault, the school’s fault, TV’s fault, etc. Can we not except that there are just some crazy people out there who will kill regardless of what we do to prevent it, whose fault it is, and the circumstances surrounding the murder? I am not trying to make these tragic loss of lives meaningless in any way, but in the real world is it too outlandish to think that there will be a certain number of “tragedies” no matter what? Accepting them for the sake of liberty and as a cost for freedom is one thing, but what about just acknowledging the fact that reality assures us that we can never eliminate these instances regardless of how hard we try. It is not to say we should stop trying to decrease murders and terrorist attacks, we should just stop the often politically charged rhetoric that we will do whatever it takes to completely eliminate terrorism and the like. Not realistic first and foremost. And often, as history dictates and as you have so eloquently put it, not worth “(how) much time, blood and treasure (we spend) doing the aforementioned in the first place.”
Great post man! I need to get you to start sending me topics to blog about because my brain gets going more reading your stuff than when I try and do my own. I guess that is the part of me that likes discussion more than soap boxing.
Badski
Hey Cameron, that is some fine writing, not to mention some excellent and thought provoking questions. It reminds me of an editorial I read recently. The author was making the point that the government has refused thus far to acknowledge the fact that the American public is the most under-emphasized terrorist fighting force we have. For example, the Nigerian who tried to blow up the NW flight was stopped and apprehended by passengers on the plane. However, such passengers are given 15 seconds of fame in the media, questioned by the authorities, and then fade into memory without the government ever learning the valuable lessons that could be learned from such people. The public should be seen as an asset by the government, and trained to be ready and vigilent at all times. Instead, after such attacks we get promises from the president that reviews will be made, changes implemented, and hopefully we will soon be able to assure the American people that the odds of a terrorist attack will be slim to none. I’m not so sure I like that promise, but it’s what the media and the electorate are demanding, so the politicians acquiesce.
I also liked your point about a defense industry that is bursting at the seems with technicians, but dangerously low on philosophers. I’m not going to lie, I’m not terribly optimistic for our country over the next century. Praise God my ultimate hope isn’t in her!
“The problem with most of that national security apparatus is that it is full of technicians, but few philosophers. ” True for multiple industries, including healthcare. We’re seeing more of the same amplifying the one-track mind, whether it’s protection or access to insurance.
Global, hybridized views are hard to come by. I also understand there’s more value to being a technician than a philosopher since the former is just paid more. The choice is to either speak up and be ignored or vilified or keep your head down and be monetarily compensated.
The incentives aren’t setup correctly. In fact, if they don’t change, we are UNKNOWINGLY perpetuating a death spiral.
@Badski,
“It is not to say we should stop trying to decrease murders and terrorist attacks, we should just stop the often politically charged rhetoric that we will do whatever it takes to completely eliminate terrorism and the like.”
Spot on my friend, public discourse needs to be seasoned with reality every once and a while.
@Collin,
I agree that the role of the American public in protecting our country is under-emphasized. I think it has a lot to do with how much the govt promises to take care of things themselves.
Even though they always bite off way more than they can chew, the govt’s rhetoric often causes a general exhale of relief from the public and causes them to check out of the debate since it’s supposedly being taken care of by “the experts.”
@Akshay,
I must admit, I actually hijacked (poor word choice) that idea from the documentary “Food, Inc.” where Polyface farmer, Joel Salatin, uses it to describe the food/agricultural industry. It’s indeed an idea that crosses over to many fields.
I too would agree that concerning the debate it’s hard to really know where to begin. I think the biggest problem is the two party system that has arisen, forcing Americans to chose this or that. With Food we can vote on a regural basis with our pocketbooks; but all we’re able to provide for our government is a vote every two years. The spacial gap, the and the number of votes is astronomical (if you go to the store 2 times a month that’s 48 votes to 1 government vote in two years). I know that we can’t really switch candidates two times a month, that makes no sense. But maybe there’s a better way of accountability, so that the government doesn’t get too big that the people no longer feel as though they have control.
I’d love to run for government, but I’d rather have somebody else! I don’t want to raise the money or have my whole life on display. It’d be nice though to have some real revolutionists run!
@ Justin,
The system is in need of an overhaul, but I doubt it will happen anytime soon. Too many people have an interest in maintaining the status quo.
Leave a Comment