The obsession with terror is controlling our politics.
By: Hank Kalet
E.J. Dionne Jr. in the Sunday Outlook section of The Washington Post offers a trenchant analysis of the impact the war on terror will have on the long-term health of our republic.
The basic idea is that the Bush administration is waging an "open-ended, low-level campaign" that allows the "sacrifices" in this war to be made only by "members of the military, police and firefighters, and few others" rather than by the society at large, which was the case with earlier wars. It is earmarked by a penchant for secrecy and a lack of tolerance for criticism of the president or dissent from the war effort.
And it boosts the fortunes of our Republican President.
"The new Politics of Terrorism have immensely strengthened the political standing of George W. Bush," he writes. "The basic facts are well known. Immediately before 9/11, Bush’s approval ratings were falling. In his memoir, ‘The Right Man,’ former Bush speechwriter David Frum admitted that he was planning to leave the White House before 9/11 because he did not want to watch as the Bush presidency ‘unraveled.’ After 9/11, Bush’s approval soared. Frum would argue that this was a tribute to Bush’s handling of the attacks. It was also a tribute to the nation’s deep desire to unite behind its president. The country, said Mark Penn, a Democratic pollster, had declared: ‘This is America, we hold together in the face of such a tragedy.’"
The Bush administration has done a good job of capitalizing on this sentiment, of course, issuing regular terror alerts and shifting attention from domestic issues whenever they seem to be impinging on his popularity.
"Because this war is a sometime thing, Bush can give patriotic speeches on even days and tax-cutting speeches on odd ones," Mr. Dionne writes.
It is earmarked by a penchant for secrecy and a
Outlook also offers some other good reading:
"We Keep Building Nukes For All the Wrong Reasons" by Bruce G. Blair, a former Minuteman launch officer and president of the Center for Defense Information, a nonpartisan think tank. The piece outlines why our commitment to nuclear weapons is offbase.
"Ill-suited for Empire" by Joseph S. Nye, dean of Harvard University’s Kennedy School of Government and author of "The Paradox of American Power." The piece offers an alternative to the Bush administration’s unilateral approach to the world.

