There are three related complaints that need to be made against the current government’s (both the administration and the Congress) approach to domestic security. First - and this is a point the Democrats have made well - is that this is going to cost money. We cannot hide the costs by passing them on to cash-strapped states and municipalities; at best this just hides them from sight for a year or two. And I suspect the situation is much like the boy who plugs the dike’s leaks with one finger only to have more leaks appear. Even seeing how Massachusetts towns don’t have the funds for adequate fire inspections after the RI nightclub fire make me wonder how we’re going to have adequate safety on public transit or bridges or office buildings.
Second, we need a sense that experts are in charge. Along with the Federal Reserve, this is one area where you don’t want untrained political appointees running the show. I’m not sure how much better the Democrats or another Republican administration would be on this front, but I do feel that the anti-intellectualism of the Bush crowd shows up in the lack of almost any technocratic expert in higher positions of power, even (especially?) in the Secretary of Treasury post. At best, expertise comes in the form of business or military experience, neither of which does Tom Ridge possess.
Third, we need more creativity. This requirement is intangible, granted. But, for instance, should we be concerned by the discovery of a simple code-breaking technique that allows anyone to duplicate master keys? Or the availability of chemical supplies through mail-order and the internet? There may be someone in the government worrying about such things and thinking creatively about weaknesses in our security and infrastructure, but I’m not so sure there is. In any case, we need to launch a much wider discussion of domestic security and to draw on a larger pool of expertise.
No comments have been added to this post yet.