Negative Liberty: Public Opinion and the Terrorist Attacks on America

Preface

Preface A merican citizens are likely to remember where they were and what they were doing when they first learned that America was under attack on the morning of September 11, 2001. I was in my office when a colleague, who had been listening to the radio, mentioned that the first airplane had crashed into the World Trade Center. By the time of the second crash, I was home glued to the television in disbelief. In addition to the terrible images of airplanes flying into buildings, which to this day are difficult to watch, I suspected immediately, as many others did, that the American way of life would change and that the freedoms we enjoyed would be challenged not only by terrorists, but also by the government. Before the collapse of the World Trade Center buildings, many questions were beginning to form in my mind about how individual citizens would respond to the attacks and to government efforts to provide for their safety and security. I have always believed that democracies are more likely to fail as a consequence of a crisis than over deliberative thought. There was much speculation about how life as we knew it would change, but my curiosity would be satisfied only through systematic research, which would involve writing a grant and soliciting financial support, constructing reliable and valid instruments to measure individual reactions, marshaling the instrument through human subjects review, executing the research, and, finally, analyzing the data. It would take more than three years, and repeated interviewing of survey respondents, to understand the individual reactions to the attacks . Time was important in understanding how the context shaped individual attitudes, but I imagine that as more time passes and events unfold we will continue to learn about how the September 11 attacks shaped our political development. One of the basic arguments of this book is that the heightened sense of threat and vulnerability that arose from the attacks was a new experience for most Americans. That a small group of foreign terrorists from the other side of the globe was able to exploit the openness of American society to perpetrate the most heinous and horrific attack against innocent citizens on American soil was incomprehensible and terrifying. The U.S. xi government with arguably the most powerful military was said to be caught off guard, but now, with its defenses up and a desire to prevent further attacks, questions were raised concerning the new adjustments and tolerances citizens would have to endure in the post-September 11 America. This led to what I consider an intriguing set of questions that go to the foundation of democratic society: With a newfound sense of anxiety and vulnerability, how far would American citizens be willing to go to maintain their sense of security and freedom? If American citizens were willing to acquiesce to political authorities, even those many believed had been elected illegally just several months prior to the attacks, would individual concessions become permanent or would they reflect only a temporary reaction to an emotional event? In addition, how would the rise in patriotism, trust in the political authorities, psychological insecurity, and cultural factors like race influence the willingness to compromise civil liberties for security? Basically, where do American citizens draw the line between liberty and order when these two conflict? From a liberal democratic theory perspective, my curiosity might seem misplaced, because order and security have not been deemed mutually exclusive where the delight in one means the sacrifice of the other. It was only through order and security that individuals could enjoy liberty and freedom. If such values did collide, the political authorities were considered to have failed in their fundamental duties and individuals had the right to start over. The reality, however, is that democratic values frequently clash with each other and security. When they do, it is important , even necessary, to understand the compromises between civil liberties and security individuals are willing to make and where they are willing to draw the line. As tragic and horrible as the attacks of September 11 were, they created a phenomenal context in which to study the commitment to democratic norms. American citizens have faced few situations in which they believed that their sense of security came at the expense of their liberty and freedom. Most of what we know about the support for civil liberties derive either from simulated and hypothetical perceptions of threat or from social and...