I think it would be unwise to pinpoint one specific source as a threat to national security. Because of the nature of a global world, everything is constantly mutable and issues are changing at the rate society is growing and learning. The fact stimulus package created high and low expectations from both political parties that eventually divided the nation into many different party lines allowed for a growing dissatisfaction to take root. The greatest threat to national security is a lack of unified acting, and the fact that if a society ever does come under a physical act of terrorism, they will be unable to come to a decision because they have become so accustomed to a general atmosphere of constant contention.
The biggest threat to national security would be the discord associated with society. “It’s the economy, stupid” is undoubtedly one of the most remembered and famous adages in the realm of political campaigning. The fact that there is a general dissatisfaction with every political action taken in order to further the agendas of the politicians in power creates a fragmented population that essentially self divides. The different factions that arise in such a disturbed population doesn’t allow for any cohesiveness amongst those who seek to weed out the harmful and sometimes fatal aspects of our society.
The greatest source of insecurity in a nation arises from the variable that is the source of the greatest “distraction” from a unified nation, and can be subject to change over several decades. Sometimes the economy performs in a boom-bust cycle that allows attention to the economy to recede or amplify depending on the focus placed on the current economy. As the closest issue to home often revolves around the economy and the household incomes affected, the growing dissatisfaction makes separation the norm instead of the abnormal, and suddenly a disaccorded society is unable to act as a unitary actor in the face of conflict.
I strongly agree with your point. We, as a nation, are so focused on combating issues that do not necessarily pertain to ourselves that we fail to evaluate our own society. I wonder how different some of our national/international policies would be if we were more unified. Or better yet, would there be more progress made to tackle such threats if we agreed more?
ReplyDeleteHowever, the one benefit that I can think of is a disjointed society provides input from a variety of angles. With a two or more party system, we obtain militaristic and diplomatic angles. Yet this goes back to your original point that in the end, we are split...
However, contention is a major part of American society and politics, and always has been. We are built on a two-party system, meaning that we are fundamentally meant to argue with each other. Granted, the current situation where Congress achieves nothing because of stubbornness on the Republicans' side and the inability to unite on the Democrat's side is completely undesirable. I do not, by any means, agree with the way that politicians are currently acting because it is simply arguing for the sake of arguing. However, the lack of unified acting has always been extant because there will never be an issue that everyone agrees on. The fact that we are arguing means that everyone's rights are enforced, and most sides are considered. Although it makes for slightly less efficient politics, it is a system that encourages collaboration.
ReplyDelete