Our first thoughts

Whenever one turns on the television first thing in the morning to find a "Breaking News" banner across the bottom of the screen there is a moment panic. With the conflict in the Middle East unfolding hourly, and the overuse of "Breaking News" logos by many networks fighting for marketshare it's easy to doubt how "breaking" the news actually is most of the time. But for a network to post such a bulletin this far from prime time, you know it has to be serious. Such was the case with the 7/7 London bombings, and such was the case this morning.

With more facts emerging it appears likely that this plot was real, and the potential results were terrible. Surely we are all thankful that the news we woke up to this morning was about arrests and not civilian airliners exploding over the Atlantic.

But what were your thoughts when you first heard the news, or saw that "Breaking News" banner crawling along the bottom of the screen?

I am sorry to say that my first thought was not "Thank God no one was hurt," but rather "Thank God I don't have to fly anywhere this weekend". Following hard upon that bit of self-centered relief was a dull sense of dread and a simple question, "How are political leaders going to use this?"

My first response had nothing do with terrorism, but rather my own desire not to be inconvineced and my frustration with political rhetoric in general, and specifically regarding the war on terror. (In my own defense after I settled in and got the facts relatively straight, I immediately thought of reading this article a while ago, which was published but is no longer available on womenswallstreet.com. If you're curious, the snopes page about this article is here)

Am I guilty of some kind of "terror apathy", only caring about terrorism after an attack rather than after an attack is thwarted, staying warmly ensconced in my false sense of security? While I certainly would have had a much different reaction had the news been of an attack, I still care about terrorism, even though my first responses this morning were of a more selfish nature. I recognize the danger that terrorism poses to me, especially living in the DC metro area, and certainly care about the risks it poses to my family and friends. I would say that makes me far from apathetic.

Upon closer inspection, I think my apparant "apathy" stems from a fundamental shift in how I look at the threat of terrorism. As i see it, terrorism is no longer primarily the tool of the terrorists designed to topple the American regime and force radical Islam onto the West, but rather the tool of political leaders to score points and claim the national security high ground in an election year (and it's always an election year in this day and age). So, for me this morning the thought of what this news was going to mean in the political arena trumped the idea that 10 planes could have been brought down and hundreds of people killed.

When looking at the larger picture, I don't feel that my response was so unjustified. No matter how many planes terrorists bring down, or how many bombs they detonate, the American Republic will stand. Even a nuclear blast in a major metropolitan area, a tragedy surely, would not topple the United States.

In contrast, the corrosiveness of the rhetoric surrounding the war on terror - especially the use of fear as a political bludgeon does pose a direct threat to the country as it prevents a real and robust debate on the best way to secure our homeland from ever occuring. The true threat of terrorism does not come from without, but from within, and it is a threat that is being fanned by the partisan hackery that passes for political discourse. Tolerating demagoguery only leads to more demagogues, and demagogues are antithetical to the ideals upon which our founding principles rest.

I’m not sure where we can step in to break the current cycle, but I’m certainly open to suggestions.