Michael Ignatieff has a provocative piece in this week’s NYTimes magazine. Ben Franklin’s quote — They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. — is widely cited in the post 9/11 era, but Ignatieff isn’t so sure it makes sense. It’s well understood that the very openness and freedom of American society was a key element in the 9/11 attackers’ success: is there some way of making society more secure without changing it’s very nature?
The risk of becoming a paranoid theocracy is not as great as some would have us believe, but I think even a gnat’s whisker closer to that is too close. The very nature of a deliberative democracy plays into the hands of a shadowy opponent like a non-state terror group: by the time the wheels stop turning, there’s no one to deal with, to retaliate against.
Accordingly, he cites arguments for a tightly constrained latitude for the executive branch, giving the office of the president the freedom to act but with regular checks and reviews by the legislative branch. He argues that being prepared for/accepting the possibility of an attack — something he doesn’t see any evidence of, even now — is essential. How can you have a strategy if you doubt there will be a need for one?
The piece is full of great quotes and ideas to think over: this one jumped out at me:
Armageddon is being privatized, and unless we shut down these markets, doomsday will be for sale.