« Decentralization's Virtues | Main | The Next Big Problems »

September 13, 2004

The Politics of Terrorism

It would be lovely to live in a world where politicians focused on issues, and we could count on them to do the right thing routinely. Gary Farber points to a rather egregious example of the world we actually live in, where President Bush permitted three anti-Castro terrorists to return to the United States to the great pleasure of the Cuban-American community. Gary's subtext is that a Kerry administration would not stoop to such pandering, though I'm sure he would deny that if asked. It would be nice to believe that, and I don't blame Gary for overlooking obvious in rooting for his candidate. But I hope that Gary won't be foolish enough to bet money on a President Kerry standing tall on this issue.

That having been said, President Bush certainly deserves censure for his decision. I'm sure Bush's supporters would argue that a second term for President Bush is vital for victory in the war, and so some compromises must be made. To the first premise I'm afraid I'm going to need some evidence that a Kerry presidency would cause us to lose the war. Yes, I do believe that John Kerry won't prosecute the war particularly effectively, but that doesn't equate to us losing the war, and I could be wrong about what Kerry will do once he's in office. Many of our presidents have surprised everyone with what they have done once they're in office. As for compromises in order to get the 'right' candidate into the office (or keep him there, in Bush's case), while there is some merit to this argument, I'd argue that undermining our most basic argument, that terrorism is never an acceptable thing, is not an area in which we can afford to compromise.

Unfortunately for all of us, we have yet to really internalize that argument. This is in some part due to the remarkable flexibility of the term 'terrorism.' I personally consider any attack whose primary target is civilians to be terrorism, but it's quite clear that my definition is not widely accepted. Many Americans of Irish descent, for example, don't consider the activities of the IRA to be terrorism. Most people around the world don't seem to have a problem with terrorism when it's directed against Israel. It's only when terrorism is directed against targets they sympathize with do people tend to view it as terrorism. So we have the rather obscene picture of Americans cheering terrorists simply because their ostensible target is unpopular.

Given that, it is unsurprising to learn that President Bush is willing to undermine one of the key moral precepts of this war when reelection is on the line, and more than it was surprising to see President Clinton pardoning terrorists whose politics might help his party. Disappointing, yes. Surprising, no. The big problem with democracy is that whatever is acceptable to the majority is going to produce politicians endorsing it. President Bush's shameful pandering is a symptom of the problem, but it is not the whole of the problem.

Now the question that remains is, how can we render terrorism unacceptable in polite company regardless of the target? And for that question I have no answers. Voting for politicians who don't pander might be a good start...if only we could find some.

Via Matt Yglesias, who asks Why George Bush Loves Terrorists. To paraphrase Carville, it's the votes, stupid.