In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

Chapter 5 Acceptable Consequences I n the last chapter, I showed that America citizens conformed to theoretical expectations, drawing on normal value preferences and contextually driven perceptions to make sense of the choice between liberty and security. Under a heightened sense of threat and vulnerability, many individuals either adopted new positions or acquiesced to government policies in a way that seemed to contradict their normal system of political beliefs. Political liberals, normally protective of civil liberties, began to reflect the preferences of political conservatives under a heightened sense of threat. Similarly, individuals normally less trusting and suspicious of political authorities began to reflect the preferences of those most trusting of political authorities. Exposure to threat upset many of the normal protections of civil liberties to favor order and security. Would individuals continue to compromise their values if they were made aware of the consequences associated with their threat-induced preferences? Persuasive arguments can be made on both sides of the civil liberties for security trade-off issue, and the consequence of either extreme choice cannot be tolerated for long.1 The extent to which a heightened sense of threat pressured people to acquiesce, or to adopt preferences they would not normally support, raises important questions about the flexibility and validity of the newly derived value preferences. If the willingness to trade civil liberties for security is based on emotional reactions to the new threat, then the decision , with all of its implications, may not be completely thought through. Instead, value preferences may be only temporary, reflecting a momentary reaction that subsides with diminishing threat. However, if the decision is based on reasoned and informed judgments, in which the consequences are understood, the newly formed preferences may reflect a real change in attitudes and have more profound implications for democracy. Thus, though understanding the situational support for civil liberties is important, the extent to which citizens can be persuaded to moderate their opinions after deeper reflection of the consequences of their choices provides critical insight into attitudes in context. After a sober second 87 thought, do citizens still maintain their initial choices in the trade-off between civil liberties and security? In this chapter I assess the short-term stability of trade-off decisions by simulating an aspect of a political debate. Rather than treating the survey response as an inexorable attitude, I presented survey respondents with the consequences of their initial opinion, in the form of counterarguments , to determine the extent to which they either maintain or change their initial positions. These counterargument experiments (or quasi-experiments) were designed around three important issues raised in the context of the terrorist attacks and the subsequent Patriot Act I: first, the indefinite detention of noncitizens; second, making it a crime to belong to or contribute money to terrorist organizations; and, third, racial profiling. The extent to which people find the consequences of their trade-off decisions acceptable has tremendous implications for the enduring effects of the attacks. I proceed by examining the persuasibility approach and the basis for civil liberties decisions. Because a substantial percentage of respondents did change their opinions, I use the model developed in chapter 4 to understand the malleability of the trade-off between civil liberties and security. Simulating Political Debate Incorporating persuasibility experiments within a public opinion survey has been said to mimic aspects of a political discussion or debate (Kinder and Sanders 1990; Sniderman and Grob 1996). Survey respondents were asked penetrating questions to place them in uncomfortable positions, in which their expressed views were not considered final or unimpeachable . Risking offending and rubbing survey respondents the wrong way, as in real political discussions, persuasibility experiments are analogous to a seemingly polite political discussion with a stranger who challenges certain opinions with the hope of changing them. Simulating political debate in a survey takes shape when persuasibility experiments go further , offering circumstances in which respondents may not have considered certain viewpoints or the consequences of their initial beliefs. Political debate involves the exchange of viewpoints, information, and the shortsightedness of opposing opinions. As Paul Sniderman and his colleagues (1996) suggest, politics is about argument. It is about getting people who start off on one side of an issue to join your side or at least to leave theirs. And part of what it means to say there is a politics of rights is to say that the positions people take on questions of rights are subject to challenge. People...

Share