PICK A WING

Here we go again... call it the politics of the politically correct. Call it a positive spin. Call it a half full glass approach.

In February, U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security (DHS), Janet Napolitano, made her initial congressional appearance and intentionally refrained from utilizing the word, “terrorism.” She was questioned by many thereafter in regard to her word choice. In fact, when asked by a foreign reporter if Islamic terrorism suddenly no longer poses a threat to our country, Napolitano said:

“Of course it does. I presume there is always a threat from terrorism. In my speech, although I did not use the word ‘terrorism,’ I referred to ‘man-caused’ disasters. That is perhaps only a nuance, but it demonstrates that we want to move away from the politics of fear toward a policy of being prepared for all risks that can occur.”

Truthfully, to debate Napolitano’s vernacular seems fruitless to me. Despite the distinct, vocabulary difference from her predecessors, as long as she recognizes that 9/11 was an attack spurred on by people motivated by evil, I care not if she cleverly calls it something other than “terrorism,” thinking somehow it will make for better politics. Hence, I will take her at her word... attempting to move away from these “politics of fear.”

Last week Napolitano’s department then released the following report: “Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment.” I heard the buzz outside the beltway and thus decided to read the 9 page, McCarthyistic document myself. It is a broad, fascinating document, which singles out those who oppose abortion and immigration, gun owners, and returning veterans as potential “extremists,” primarily due to a slowed economy and the “historic election of our first African American President.” The generalized categories do not necessarily have a history of violence; the report asserts that the holding of such opinions alone may lead to violence. It is not specific, unlike the previous 7 page DHS report, “Leftwing Extremists Likely to Increase Use of Cyber Attacks over the Coming Decade” (yes, which I also so joyfully read in my free time this week). The “leftwing” report named specific extremist groups with violent histories, their planned targets, and proposed intentional strategies.

The stark contrast between the two reports is most revealing, and before any of us begin to crow about the appropriateness of either winged report, we need to read the other, also. Thankfully, Napolitano has already publicly apologized to our veterans, recognizing that uniformly lumping them into potential extremist groups upon their return to civilian life, was perhaps not the best means of expressing the government’s gratitude for their service.

Rep. Bennie Thompson, the top Democrat with congressional DHS oversight said he was “dumbfounded” by Napolitano’s assertions. To her, Thompson wrote: "This report appears to raise significant issues involving the privacy and civil liberties of many Americans - including war veterans. As I am certain you agree, freedom of association and freedom of speech are guaranteed to all Americans — whether a person’s beliefs, whatever their political orientation, are ‘extremist’ or not.” Believing an opinion different than another does not substantiate extremism... or terrorism for that matter either.

Excuse me...what again does it mean to avoid the politics of fear?

AR