The United States government has reached a critical junction that will decide the future of the nation: do we continue down the slippery slope of national security overreaction, or do we deal with the domestic problems that we face here at home? After our trips to Christ House, and then to the Pentagon, it was obvious that the United States has chosen the former, at least for now.Congratulations!Today is your day.You're off to Great Places!You're off and away!
You have brains in your head.You have feet in your shoes.You can steer yourselfany direction you choose.
There comes a point where the government is too involved in the security of their nation. I'm not saying the United States is there yet, or we should just open our borders or end scanning in airports, but I find it odd that people are so frightened by any hint of government intervention in the economy, yet those same people are perfectly fine with the government monitoring every part of their lives from the day they're born until the day they die.
It's interesting to wonder why the US has clearly sided with the military/security end of this growingly one-sided dichotomy. For those who say that we can have both, I would cite LBJ's problems keeping together the Great Society while fighting a massive war in Southeast Asia. Still, though, the budget appropriated to the Vietnam War was smaller than the budget of the Defense Department today, even after being adjusted for inflation.
In 1979/1980, every night, you would hear Walter Cronkite, after he concluded each of his evening news broadcasts about the update on the hostage situation in Iran. While the securement of the American diplomats was a serious issue and the Carter administration should be praised for bringing them home safe, you never would hear him say how many people died due to drug overdose on that day. You would never hear how many kids went to bed hungry lastnight. Or how many citizens live below the poverty line. Are they not important?
Perhaps it's because when discussing security there is a clear enemy. We see them on television, denouncing the United States and promising retribution for American occupation of land abroad. The economy isn't going to go on CNBC one morning and say, "hey, sucks to be you guys, but I'm increasing unemployment another half a percent. Oh yeah, and 4 million more Americans are now below the poverty line." While it's obviously unclear what reaction would be in such a bizarre situation, one would imagine that it would bring the problems of economic instability to the forefront of American concerns, even more so than it is currently.
Neither problem is going to be "solved." There isn't a magic solution of government programs and regulations that is going to solve the problem of economic insecurity in this country. Likewise, the national security of the United States is Poverty is always going to continue: so long as there are rich people there will be "poor" people. Terrorism will live on anyway you look at it.
America's "day" is now, and for all we know, the sun may be setting on this day sooner than we realize. What direction should we choose? Should we secure our people from the ravages of economic and social neglect, or secure ourselves from those who will never like us anyway? The economy is certainly not a friendly apparatus, but it is not malevolent. Squashing terrorism is a futile exercise. It's like a rash on your skin. Keep scratching it, and it will get worse. Let it alone, and it will eventually fade away. Again, neither of these problems is going to be fully solved, but in my opinion the decision on the future priorities of the United States should be clear. It's up to you.
You're off to Great Places!Today is your day!Your mountain is waiting.So...get on your way!
Scotty, I'm sure you're glad to know that we actually kind of agree on something about politics that isn't our mutual hatred of Palin and the fact that Romney, although he'd be a terrible president, does look the part. Take a moment to absorb the shock.
ReplyDeleteMoving on, I completely agree that we need to focus at home first, although I think we would accomplish this in different ways. Maybe when I think about this it is more along the lines of reducing aid to other countries to reduce the amount taxpayers have to pay and thus hopefully stimulate the private sector through private investments and innovations, but I do believe there are more vexing issues at home that can be solved. Terrorism won;t be. It's impossible to wage a total anti terrorism war, as un- Wilson/Bush (two of our favorites) as the point is. It's a hopeless battle to go out and screw over civil liberties attempting to hunt down every terrorist because it's simply impossible. We could take that money and time that we're wasting fighting a fruitless battle and deal with issues at home. However, that's not to say that we shouldn't still focus on our defense. Going on the offense against terrorism won't work; building our defenses against potential attacks is still important.
Basically, we have two pretty different ideas of what should be done instead of focusing on security issues. Still, you make an excellent point about needing an enemy. I guess it makes me think of how, growing up, we were always taught that there's a "bad guy," almost to the point that we need a scapegoat now to focus on (see Pelosi to the country even though it wasn't technically her agenda, for example). War, terrorism, etc. provide that. Other problems are much more complex and hard to quantify into an enemy, which makes it harder for people to rise up and get passionate about. Still, I wonder why we aren’t. People are really more effected by economic downturns than by terrorism threats; one is a much more real and present danger than the other. Maybe that’s why you and I are more concerned about it – me in my semi selfish capitalist view point, and you from your LBJ helping everyone stance.
You're very right about these two paths, but I think (as much as I love the man), the country has ultimately chosen the Reagan-esque defense path (unless we see Paul 2012 – either or). I guess how easy it is to inspire fear about terrorism, etc. makes it difficult to get people to look realistically and logically at the fact that we need to make some tough choices about what battles we need to pick (in a Christie- esque fashion). It won’t be popular, but we have to hope that people will step back and prioritize. Unfortunately, very few candidates seem to be willing to risk their political careers to make the distinction known to the public.
Sorry, a lot of this might be pointless rambling that comes from you telling me to read your post. Which was really fantastic. There's also a very good chance I missed your point because I sort of started ranting. So sorry for that.
However, I'd like to mention my personal favorite Dr. Seuess here (not implying that we should do anything about the issue addressed here though)...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZVBsZcpBOFI