Serving Bread

(Part IV in an occasional series. Read Part I, Part II, and Part III)

Is there something to be said about the fact that the US policies both domestically and abroad have been succesful in that we have not been attacked since 9/11? Those who support Bush’s policies cite “we haven’t been attacked since 9/11″ as an example of the strength of the policies and that our war efforts in the Middle East have left us much safer than five years ago.

The argument that the policies have worked because we have not been attacked doesn’t hold much merit from a rhetorical perspective, but it works, because many Americans buy it. It technically is a true statement–we have not been attacked since 2001. And it could be true that some of the policies in place, including our war on terror, have contributed to that, but there is no way to judge whether that’s the case.

Using this argument, it seems that I can say: The US has not been attacked since I switched from drinking Coke to Diet Coke. That’s a true statement. I could argue of a “butterfly effect” where my choices affect outcome on a grand scale.
What the statement assumes are:

1. Our ‘enemy’ wants to attack us again.
2. The policies of the Bush administration have frustrated the enemy’s plans.
3. Our current policy is the most superior policy to keep us safe.
4. The pursuit of safety can and should trump other values.

Those statements may be true, but they could also be false. Any thoughts or challenges to our current foreign policy runs up against the statement that we haven’t been attacked since 9/11. The administration has launched two wars, and has implemented several domestic programs (including the detainment without charge) that are ethically and legally questionable, yet everything is justified because that statement gives Americans a level of comfort knowing that we are now safer.

It seems that in last week’s elections, American voters challenged the notion that because we haven’t been attacked, we need to support the Bush administration policies (the President and his allies were making such statements until the very end of the campaign, hoping to sway voters in their direction). When our leaders make these blanket statements, they immune themselves from any critique of their policies and efforts. By not inviting alternative point of views and a critique of the policies, we are left with a frustrated population, and policies that do not reflect the moral conviction of many Americans.

-----
If you enjoyed this post, be sure to grab the RSS feed. Also, please take a moment to submit this post through "Share This" above.
-----