A safer America versus an open
America; regulation versus civil liberties; federal spending versus a hope and
a prayer. These issues are now at the
forefront, with the recent events in Boston and West Texas, along with the
ongoing debate over cutting federal spending to address the debt crisis. When two young radicals are able to maim,
kill and shut down a major city at a loss of millions in commercial activity,
two questions must be asked. When a non
descript fertilizer company can ignore regulations on storing dangerous
chemicals (ammonium nitrate) and a small town is decimated, the same two
questions come to mind.
The first question is as old as
democratic political theory and our constitution. How much personal freedom are we willing to
give up in order to avoid an act of intentional (Boston) or reckless (West
Texas) harm? How many cameras on poles;
searches of our communication records; unannounced raids on fertilizer
factories or suspension of constitutional legal guarantees are too many? Where do we draw the line between security
and regulation on the one hand and the open society that sets us apart from the
rest of the world, on the other?
The second question is one of limited
resources and the national debt. Whether
a tragedy is averted or not, enhanced security and enforcing regulations cost
money, lots of money. In this time of
austerity, favoring these goals will force fiscal reductions in other
worthwhile causes. For example, many
communities might prefer spending federal and state dollars on increased
economic incentives to lure a large sporting event or chemical factory into
their own backyard over providing security at major events or regulatory
enforcement of dangerous chemicals.
Then there are the effects of the
across the board deficit reduction. The
automatic sequester in January has forced layoffs and cutbacks in the very
federal programs and agencies designed to prevent the events in Boston and West
Texas. We also know that state and local
enforcement capabilities have been drastically reduced in recent years, due to
mandatory cutbacks.
Sometimes events sharpen the landscape
and force us to view what was previously in the fog and unpleasant to look
at. Each of us must determine our own
tolerance for giving up some of the freedom that American democracy has come to
represent and where providing funding for this goal fits among our other
priorities. In other words, we must ask ourselves the two questions: (1) how
much “big brother” national security effort to seek out and prevent intentional
acts and how much regulatory enforcement to seek out and prevent reckless acts,
are appropriate for the common good and
(2) how will we pay for it.
