Scaring Ourselves to Debt

by Will Wilkinson on October 23, 2004

Via Gene Healy, this Regulation article by John C. Mueller, “A False Sense of Insecurity,” is one of the most important and enlightening things I’ve read in months, although it has a rather simple point. Mueller’s point is that all things considered terrorism is not an enormous threat, and we should just calm down and get a grip.

Even with the September 11 attacks included in the count, the number of Americans killed by international terrorism since the late 1960s (which is when the State Department began counting) is about the same as the number of Americans killed over the same period by lightning, accident-causing deer, or severe allergic reaction to peanuts.

Mueller goes on to argue persuasively that we are in grip of a very costly and very likely unproductive hysteria about terrorist threats.

Mueller’s view needs to be disseminated:

* Assessed in broad but reasonable context, terrorism generally does not do much damage.

* The costs of terrorism very often are the result of hasty, ill-considered, and overwrought reactions.

A sensible policy approach to the problem might be to stress that any damage terrorists are able to accomplish likely can be absorbed, however grimly. While judicious protective and policing measures are sensible, extensive fear and anxiety over what may at base prove to be a rather limited problem are misplaced, unjustified, and counterproductive.

This is right. And people won’t like it.

I remember getting into a spat with an ex-girlfriend about the Beltway Sniper at the time of his (their) reign of terror. She was nervous about going shopping in Northern Virginia. I told her that given the population of the area, and the range over which the sniper was sniping, her chances of being shot were many many times smaller than her chances of dying in a car accident on her way the store. She denounced me for my rationalistic insensitivity to her fear. Such is the nature of our problem.

  • Yes. I agree with the commenter above. It is not the damage done SO FAR that matters -- though that is heinous -- but what could happen next if the fruitcaskes are not stopped as soon as possible
  • Haven't read his article, but my initial reaction is: Doesn't this neglect the importance of the fact that terrorists are increasingly able to utilize weapons that can kill -- not dozens, or hundreds, as in the past -- but tens of thousands of people at once?

    I mean, the prospect of bringing a suitcase nuke into Los Angeles, or an untreatable viral infection into New York, is more than a hypothetical pesky nuisance. And they seem to be just what radical Islamics would love to do, if we let down our guard.
  • Lemon Merengue
    Your ex-girlfriend huh? Too clever by half maybe.
  • Will, I agree with the whole thrust of the article + your comments but I think the real problem is the nature of democracy - there is currently a big incentive to buy votes with promises to placate fear. Thus, fear (of terrorism, GM crops..whatever) is stoked to provide a political base. This is exacerbated by lobbyists (the Greens, neocons...pick a conspiracy theory).
    What to do? Well, obviously, the government can just employ impartial risk analysts who will produce wonderfully impartial risk analyses, unimpaired by politics!
    The problem is that politics is not rational in the way which would provide a solution to this issue - and socialistic politics which have embraced science are hardly good examples here.
    My solution, in which I am not very confident, would be to remove politics from areas prone to fear-mongering (I don't know how) and hope the market would sort it out by providing incentives for people to learn. Fear-mongering is successful in part because people can off load the consequences of their irrational decision making on others. Although, bringing the market in to sort out national security is a pipe dream.

    (BTW, thanks for the link)
blog comments powered by Disqus

Previous post:

Next post: