Terrorism vs. Risk Analysis

Imagine Mr. Spock as both dance historian and political scientist, and you get John Mueller, whose essay A False Sense of Security? is one of the most sensible reactions to terrorism I've read in months (sponsored by the Cato Institute, no less!). It should be read by all who scratch their heads as airport queues grow, mouthwash samples get tossed into bins, and moms taste baby formula for TSA goons. Mueller's premise is as follows:

Assessed in broad but reasonable context, terrorism generally does not do much damage.

The costs of terrorism very often are the result of hasty, ill-considered, and overwrought reactions.


He goes on with a rational analysis that follows the old flying-is-safer-than-driving argument: stats show that terrorism kills few, but spooks many. The conclusion is sensible: "Terrorists can be defeated simply by not being terrified -- that is, anything that enhances fear simply gives in to them." I would add that anything that enhances fear feeds the leathery Republican parasites, whose overreaching power has pissed off even the Cato Institute.

In November, you should cast your vote with all of this in mind.