By: Joe Gabriele
One year ago, the Atlantic Monthly published an article on the trade-offs between liberty and safety in the context of the American ethos and terrorism. Two months ago, the author, writer David Foster Wallace, committed suicide. I found the article thought provoking, and wanted to share.
_____
The Future of the American Idea
November 2007
Atlantic Monthly
by David Foster Wallace
Just Asking
Are some things still worth dying for? Is the American idea(1) one such thing? Are you up for a thought experiment? What if we chose to regard the 2,973 innocents killed in the atrocities of 9/11 not as victims but as democratic martyrs, “sacrifices on the altar of freedom”?(2) In other words, what if we decided that a certain baseline vulnerability to terrorism is part of the price of the American idea? And, thus, that ours is a generation of Americans called to make great sacrifices in order to preserve our democratic way of life—sacrifices not just of our soldiers and money but of our personal safety and comfort?
In still other words, what if we chose to accept the fact that every few years, despite all reasonable precautions, some hundreds or thousands of us may die in the sort of ghastly terrorist attack that a democratic republic cannot 100-percent protect itself from without subverting the very principles that make it worth protecting?
Is this thought experiment monstrous? Would it be monstrous to refer to the 40,000-plus domestic highway deaths we accept each year because the mobility and autonomy of the car are evidently worth that high price? Is monstrousness why no serious public figure now will speak of the delusory trade-off of liberty for safety that Ben Franklin warned about more than 200 years ago? What exactly has changed between Franklin’s time and ours? Why now can we not have a serious national conversation about sacrifice, the inevitability of sacrifice—either of (a) some portion of safety or (b) some portion of the rights and protections that make the American idea so incalculably precious?
In the absence of such a conversation, can we trust our elected leaders to value and protect the American idea as they act to secure the homeland? What are the effects on the American idea of Guantánamo, Abu Ghraib, Patriot Acts I and II, warrantless surveillance, Executive Order 13233, corporate contractors performing military functions, the Military Commissions Act, NSPD 51, etc., etc.? Assume for a moment that some of these measures really have helped make our persons and property safer—are they worth it? Where and when was the public debate on whether they’re worth it? Was there no such debate because we’re not capable of having or demanding one? Why not? Have we actually become so selfish and scared that we don’t even want to consider whether some things trump safety? What kind of future does that augur?
FOOTNOTES:
1. Given the strict Gramm-Rudmanewque space limit here, let’s just please all agree that we generally know what this term connotes—an open society, consent of the governed, enumerated powers, Federalist 10, pluralism, due process, transparency … the whole democratic roil.
2. (This phrase is Lincoln’s, more or less)
David Foster Wallace is the author of several books, including Infinite Jest (1996), A Supposedly Fun Thing I’ll Never Do Again (1997), and Consider the Lobster (2005).
_____
I think the article brings up two separate questions. 1) Are Americans willing to accept a lesser degree of safety to live the way of life they’re used to? 2) The net benefit of some of our “safety” measures (i.e.- Guantanamo, illegal wiretaps, Patriot Act).
This article is so interesting because it confronts issues that most Americans prefer not to think about, and does so in the context of very current and controversial topics. I wanted to share the article because though the public debate on these issues has not yet truly occurred, the article is still a great tool for spurring great discourse. The questions and opinions that arise after reading it are strong and worth discussing. As to my opinion, I’ll keep it very simple:
The fact is that no amount of precautions, reasonable or otherwise, can GUARANTEE that nothing bad is going to happen. Even if we were to subvert the very principles that make our country worth protecting, that’s not an absolute bar to preventing attacks. I think that’s what a lot of people are looking for these days- an absolute bar- and this plays into a lot of the fear-mongering out there. Since subverting American ideals and personal freedoms is harmful to our country/citizens and not capable of preventing all terrorist attacks, we should be EXTREMELY careful what we give up in the name of safety.
