Reactionary

For some time now, I've been puzzled by the reaction to terrorism in the US. 9/11 was a horrible, frightening event (I was in Manhattan that day, though not downtown). But the responses in this country--assuming that every event is terrorism related, throwing out our legal system, a blank check for adventures abroad, and so on--seem wildly disproportionate. The US response seems especially over the top when you look at Europe. Europeans have had to deal with post 9/11 terrorism and other forms as well, especially in the 1970s and 80s, yet the have not upended their institutions as the US has. So what can account for this disproportionate response? I am not a psychologist by training, so my suggestions are just speculation, but I think it's worthwhile to at least raise them if only to broach the subject.

The first notion is that the response in the US is the reactionary expression of the arc of the baby boomer mind. This is of a piece with the notion that boomer liberalism of the 1960s was narcissistic indulgence rather than experimentation. That thread, which became easier to see in the 70s and 80s, suggests that the reaction today is disproportionate not because of actual fear, but because of the heightened response of a narcissist to a perceived threat. Because terrorism is an unknowable, it is a wild card, and thus difficult for a narcissist to sustain the illusion of control against it.

Second, the reaction might also be a function of a certain kind of atavism. The people running the show today grew up in the 50s, a time of repeated fear-mongering about nuclear war. Duck and cover was a popular idea then, even though in a real nuclear attack it would do no good for anyone near a targeted site. Perhaps terrorism evokes--unconsciously--this older fear from childhood, and the response today is really the response to the Soviet Union of the 1950s.

Thoughts?