“If you see something, say something.” This popular slogan is seen on posters in airports, subway stations, and many other public transportation sites. But how many times will you actually “say something?” The “see something, say something” campaign, originally developed by New York’s Metropolitan Transportation Authority in 2002, is an effort to raise public awareness about terror and crime indicators. Since then, the slogan has been adopted and used by various congressmen, historic sites, and at public events. By seeing the signs, do people feel safe? Or is it just another added cost from the Department of Homeland Security? Post 9/11, Vice President Dick Cheney developed what is known as the "1% Doctrine." This doctrine means that the United States must treat low probability but high impact events as if they were certain. But is homeland security really worth all the funding?
First, for the sake of human psychology, I believe that homeland security is worth the cost. In human nature, there is a tendency to inflate situations and imagine the worst case scenarios. The public demands substantial government action even if the risk level does not warrant a great response as a result of probability neglect. People sometimes do not consider the probability of the likeliness of the occurrence of an outcome, but rather only focus on the consequences. According to Debs and Monteiro, the capacities of terrorists are far less dangerous than the press reports it to be. This causes a demand for increased safety measures from the public resulting in the government spending more public monies. Security measures are cost-effective when the benefit of the measure outweighs the costs of providing the security measures. This means that preventing a disaster will be greater than the cost of that disaster. The issue with this is that there is no way to exactly measure an imminent security threat. We are spending for a small reduction in probabilities that are already very low. Are low probabilities worth the high costs? Allocating funds towards the unexpected in a spectrum of situations leaves us prepared and with a feeling of security. While there is no way to eradicate uncertainty, the costs of prevention are far less then the costs of an attack.
Second, in the article "National Security as an Ambigious Symbol" by Arnold Wolfers, he mentions the law of diminishing marginal returns. This means that for each addition of national security that we implement, there is a sacrifice for something else. But are the trade-offs worth it? Lets look at Hurricane Katrina as an example. In 2005, New Orlean’s Levees were not built for the worst case scenario when Hurricane Katrina hit. The government chose not to upgrade the levees and in turn over 1,800 people were killed and the hurricane cost the city nearly $150 billion. The probability of the Hurricane actually hitting New Orleans was very low. Therefore, the government chose to make trade-offs. Rather than spending on category five levees, they put the money towards education and city upgrades. This was because the chances of the Hurricane hitting the city were low and the government did not know how high the cost of destruction would be. educed the risk even further. While it is hard to calculate exact risks and the benefits we receive from Homeland Security, it has been determined we are definitely safer and more prepared.
The result of from the lack of preparedness also caused people to lack faith in the government. George Bush boldly told the public to rely on local relief organizations rather than the government. As Bush lacked the backing of the American public, the Congressional members also began to lack faith in his abilities and decisions. After Hurricane Katrina, he was unable to get his approval ratings back up which hurt him as his presidency came to a close. If the government had chosen to spend on both the prevention and recovery efforts from Hurricane Katrina, Bush would have had more support on his political agenda for proposals on tax cuts, immigration policies, and more. Therefore, the government should spend on Homeland Security for their own benefit as well if they want to maintain the support of the public.
To conclude; since the attacks on 9/11, US expenditures on Homeland Security have been extremely effective. Implementing security measures and spreading public awareness has reduced the risk even further. While it is hard to calculate exact risks and the benefits we receive from Homeland Security, it has been determined we are definitely safer and more prepared. For the sake of preventing fear inflation, maintaining government support, and for being prepared for any situation, homeland security is definitely worth the cost.
No idea why the fonts change... Sorry!!
ReplyDeleteTo continue Wolfers argument - can we ever have 100% security. Sure we miss something but a) there is no guarantee that we wouldn't miss it anyways and b) maybe we plan for things that never happen and thus end up giving up liberties or services to plan for something that doesn't happen. If we can't be 100% certain, isn't some uncertainty worth it?
ReplyDeleteMaddie,
ReplyDeleteWhile I see your point, I think that homeland security has a lot of different tasks. I see what you are saying about preventing future disasters. However, there will always be low probability threats and in my opinion it is near impossible to eradicate all of them. In addition, attempting to prevent all threats will result in a need for funding which could result in a decrease in spending on other important issues, such as education, environmental research, etc. What you mentioned about hurricane Katrina, is very important. I agree that the threat was not taken seriously enough both before it happened and with the disaster relief actions after the incident. Disaster relief and prevention is a very important matter that deserves a lot of attention from homeland security. However, I think that the anti-terrorist actions that our country has taken, especially after 9/11, are somewhat extreme. I can understand the fear and vulnerability that the attack on the twin towers provoked in our community and that the incentive to act was very strong. However, this increased alertness towards terrorists in the public community is not necessarily decreasing our fear. On the contrary, by the continuous talk and extreme anti-terrorist measures that have been instituted, this fear is becoming rooted deeper and deeper into our society. It is creating an unfair bias towards Muslims and towards immigrants in general. While I am not disregarding terrorism as a threat, I think that our continual attention and the high priority we have towards eradicating terrorist threats is creating an increased hysteria in the country and ultimately an anti-Muslim, xenophobic society.
Leah, I agree that it is definitely impossible to eradicate all threats especially those on a smaller scale covered by insurance. Post 9/11 I definitely agree with you on that the American public tends to inflate fear and blow the possibility of a terror attack happening again out of proportion. However, I do not think that is not necessarily the governments fault that an anti-Muslim and xenophobic attitude has developed in society. The government took the necessary measures and it is the public that has created the stigma around Muslims after the tragic event of 9/11. Also, it is becoming harder and harder for us to filter who/what might pose a threat to our nation's safety. We live in a post 9/11 America full of suspicion and paranoia. It is time for us as a generation that when a small group or individual is at fault, we should not stereotype their entire background, ethnicity, gender, race, etc.
DeleteReading this, I realized that changes were made to Homeland Security policies after Hurricane Katrina. This seems to be a trend: changing policies as a result of a huge mistake. While you could argue that policy-makers learn from their mistakes, it really enhances the low-probability of any given event. Hurricane Katrina had a low probability of hitting New Orleans, so funds were put towards education. After the destruction from Katrina, then changes were made. Similarly, it was after 9/11 that foreign policy changed and security was increased drastically. Now we have high-cost efforts in place to prevent things that have such a low probability that we couldn't even predict them. If we continue to provide better security to past destruction it's really not cost effective at all. Instead in the future, something destructive will happen, we will put more high-cost efforts in place, and we will keep acting in the aftermath instead of truly predicting harmful events.
ReplyDeleteMadeleine,
ReplyDeleteI think you have some interesting points here but I don't entirely believe all of them personally. One question that popped into my head after reading this is about the levels of paranoia raised by both Hurricane Katrina and 9/11. You mentioned that the probability of both events is very low. In the case of Katrina, preventative measures weren't taken and though people lost a lot of faith in the Bush administration, there was and still is no where near the level of paranoia surrounding category 5 hurricanes in major metropolitan areas than there is for terrorist attacks. In a way, I echo Maddie's comments about this. Why is that even though much more government funding has gone towards Homeland Security and "preventative measure," there is still a very real paranoia and anxiety among the American people surrounding the idea of a terrorist attack, even though it supposedly had the same low probability as Hurricane Katrina hitting New Orleans did?