Terrorism And The Politics Of Fear Analysis

1357 Words3 Pages

The problem as stated by David Altheide in “Terrorism and the Politics of Fear”, is the way in which the government uses acts of terrorism, or extreme acts of violence, to pass new, more strict, security measures and other regulations that limited the freedom of Americans. Acts of terrorism such as 9/11, the Boston Marathon bombing, and even the presence of terrorism across the globe like ISIS, or acts of violence in the country, such as school shootings, help in ‘scaring’ the general public to accepting new laws that, in a sense, limit their freedoms in the name of security. In “The U.S. Global Military Empire”, Michael Parenti talks about how the U.S. military has become a primary focus for our nation, even above education. The government continues to pour millions of dollars into our military, even after wars such as the Cold War ends, since America has now taken on the unofficial role of the ‘worlds police’. The funding has extended beyond our military forces to private contractors. There contractors cost much more, and are far less effective, however, the reason they are used is to bypass the protocols and policies that comes with a military strike. I believe the values being challenged in both of these articles is our freedom. We see various security restrictions being …show more content…

The cause of both these problems are very similar, and correlate well together. If they, the government, can influence the need to send the military to combat terrorism, then it can also implement new security policies and regulations, and claim it’s because of the terrorist threat. It also works if there is an attack on American soil, such as 9/11 and the Boston Marathon bombing, that the US can condone stricter security measures, and the public all but demands we use our military to revenge those killed in the

Open Document