Why are the reactions to terrorist attacks always
wrongheaded?
The first response by politicians and pundits to the recent
attack in London is once again to call for an increase in security activity,
which inevitably involves a reduction (temporary, of course) of rights and
freedoms. The security forces require
greater access to personal information.
They need the right to detain people with fewer justifications and for
longer periods. Somehow, normal people
are always far more inconvenienced than the terrorists.
That, of course, is part of the terrorists’ intent. As security processes become more onerous,
resistance to those processes becomes greater, and the forces standing against
the status quo gain increasing sympathy and support. And, as usual, paying for expanded security
processes is not going to take any financial toll on the wealthy. The costs will be met by reducing social
programs.
This kind of response is exactly opposite to the response
that is needed.
Where do these terrorists come from? Why are they susceptible to the call of
radicalism? They come from marginalized
communities, from groups that feel excluded from the wider society’s access to
progress, improvement, and prosperity.
As has always been the case, this marginalization is felt by groups
identified by ethnicity, by culture, by origin, by religion, and by economic
status. The groups that control the
government, the society, and the culture do not foster rebellion within their
ranks. It is only people who feel
themselves outside the “power elite” that feel a need to rebel and look for
causes and justifications that will allow them to strike out at
oppression. All it takes is for an angry
activist to identify some person or an institution as oppressive, and other
angry people will heed the call to action.
There’s no mystery here.
There’s also no mystery to why nothing effective is ever
done about terrorism. The only thing
that will really resolve this problem is to build an inclusive society, to stop
marginalizing groups, to stop strengthening a system that protects the wealthy
few at the expense of the many. What is
really remarkable in all this is that the wealthy few, who have the means to
obtain good educations, who have access to the best expertise, are too foolish
to realize that it is by empowering the wider community that you best protect
and expand markets, social satisfaction, social order, and stability.
As soon as you start trying to protect “us” by setting up
barriers to the growth of “them”, you sow the seeds of discord, violence, and
destruction. Embracing change and
encouraging growth are the primary requirements for moving safely into the
future. Fighting against progress only
leads to ever greater tension, conflict, and, eventually, full-scale
revolution.
But you won’t hear that on the news.
