The State Of Our Union... Is Strong?

I was doing some thinking on the way home the other night. Perhaps this was my first mistake. I was thinking about the war on terror. They weren't original thoughts, many have had them, but I needed to get them all down as the Senate prepares this week to decide if they still care about checks and balances.

The war is all we've really heard about for the better part of the last four years. It was the main focus, again, of the President's State of the Union. It's what most of his other speeches are about. It's what's used to justify most of their decisions. It's what all the media pundits discuss. Is this the sole purpose of our government now? To fight an enemy? And not in a finite war, like most others have been, but a continuous one? Its purpose is not to help people find jobs (since they're all being sent overseas), help those less fortunate (hey, handouts will only make them lazy), provide adequate healthcare to uninsured Americans (funding cut again and again), foster better educational environments (many children still left behind), or to set an example for the world (they aren't too fond of us these days)? Apparently it is not, because the focus, and funding, is all about the war on terror.

And what are we fighting for in this war? And at what cost does 'victory' come?

Are we fighting for our freedoms? This President and his administration have been slowly dismantling our freedoms since the attacks. Being free doesn't just mean the big stuff, like women not having to cover up their faces or us not being beheaded by our leaders for dissent. Being free is really about the little stuff- our most basic freedoms and liberties as outlined in the Bill of Rights. These are historically the ones that have been susceptible to assault from within. And these are the ones (freedom of speech and expression, freedom from unwarranted search and seizure, freedom from an overly intrusive federal government, etc.) that the Bush administration have stripped away, all in the name of... defending our freedoms. And when people do speak out or protest, they are blown off by the media as whackos. No doubt they would have said the same thing about a bunch of radicals known as the 'Sons of Liberty' committing corporate terrorism against the British East India Company by dumping their products into the harbor. Today we ask not do any such acts, we turn to Congress to protect these freedoms. We merely question what our government is doing to the liberties the founders fight so hard to obtain for us. To me, the true whackos are the ones who can see the President on TV admitting to breaking the law and find it of little concern.

Or are we fighting for our safety? If so, is this threat really as severe as we are led to believe? Logic concludes that we are in no greater or less danger than we were on September 10, 2001. We face dangers, yes, but the hysteria we have seen coming from the right defies logic. I refuse to buy this myth that we are under constant, imminent danger from attack and only the unchecked and decisive hand of the government can save us (ask the residents of New York or New Orleans how well they trust the government to react in crisis). We were attacked in 1993. The next attack on U.S. soil (by a foreign enemy) was not until eight years later. The specter of threats the government holds over us has largely been a political tool (as anyone who remembers Tom "Duct Tape" Ridge's pre-2004 election stint as Homeland Security director well knows) and thus they have further cheapened their credibility on this issue.

This is also not an 'unprecedented' danger. When I see remaining nuclear bomb shelter signs or old "duck and cover" information ads/videos, I know that this is a great lie. I'd like to see a survey of baby boomers, the sputnik generation, address which era they felt more significant in terms of world threats. My hunch tells me ours wouldn't be it. This is certainly a threat that must be dealt with clear and decisive ways, but America's faced worst threats before (both in foreign wars and civil wars). We've been attacked before. I imagine it's inevitable we will be attacked again at some point in the future (hopefully, distant future). And we've always come out okay. Because we're America.

Besides, is all of America really in danger? States like Wisconsin, South Dakota, or Wyoming are not targets of terrorism. I'm sure we've all seen the videos of grannies in Michigan wondering about terrorists attacking the local Walmart (and they call liberals paranoid) and have laughed. Of course, the usual suspects are the potential targets: New York City, Washington DC, and (if '24' is to believed) Los Angeles. Why these cities? Because they are of governmental or economic importance to the nation. And I believe it's worth noting that these cities are also home to the most progressive people in America. They do not support this President and his definition of 'war'. The White House thought that, after 9/11, New York City would turn Republican (hence, the 2004 convention). They misunderestimated our intelligence. The citizens of these cities love the country and do not want to be attacked, but we also have the common sense to know a con artist when we see one (wow, I just gotta pick the right card, you say?) and we understand that 'freedom' is more than just a catchphrase and is best taught by example. Polls indicate more and more Americans are catching on.

In the State of the Union address last week, the President stated, "the state of our Union is strong". Really? We are told we are in constant danger from unseen enemies. We have gone into record debt spending over half a trillion dollars fighting these enemies. We are told the safety of our republic is in such a fragile state that even a rubberstamp FISA system isn't quick enough to stop our enemies. We are told we must make compromises in our basic rights and values in order to fight what is, by definition, a war without end. The state of the union I just described... is strong?

Maybe I did too much thinking, but that doesn't make any sense.

Perhaps I shouldn't think about it. Or think about anything of consequence. Most Americans don't. And they seem quite content. Thanks for reading (if you did). I'm going to work now. I hope this week's hearings will begin a road back to sanity and not merely be another partisan revalidation of the President's imperial powergrab.