Our political process will keep doing its job

Reprinted with permission of the Times Union, Albany, N.Y.

By TOM BIRKLAND,
Special to the Times Union
First published: Sunday, September 30, 2001

Nearly three weeks after the outrageous attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, the most immediate and obvious problems — terrorism and airline safety — are being identified and addressed. We all want to know how such acts can be prevented in the future, so we've begun to take a hard look at policies made and enforced here at home.

Like never before, we are demanding information about terrorism, intelligence gathering, airline safety and the economy. We are proving that we can seek and use serious, hard news and can ignore and disdain pseudo-news, fabricated scandal and celebrity gossip.

As we learn more, we must make sure that policies intended to ensure national security — our security — are not merely reassuring but empty measures. Quick military action may soothe us, but the effective response to terrorism includes many tools, used by many people from computer experts to accountants and soldiers.

For example, we are all too familiar with the increased attention given to aviation security after the Pan Am 103 bombing in 1988 and during the Gulf War. However, after the initial interest peaked, enthusiasm for stricter security waned.

Today, banning curbside check-in and stationing soldiers in airports may seem comforting, but these minor steps will not address terrorism if our diligence declines in the years ahead.

The Bush administration appears to be thinking more seriously about aviation security than any administration before it. While I still strongly favor "federalizing'' the passenger screening function to ensure that highly qualified staff inspect baggage and identify possible threats, the administration is considering measures that may increase the competence of screeners without leading to what Republicans see as "big government.''

These measures include much tougher regulations regarding the selection, training and salaries of these vital security workers.

At the same time, the administration is leaning away from some more outlandish ideas, such as arming pilots with guns. Rather, thought is being given to requiring pilots to remain at their positions at all times and to reinforcing the doors between the cockpit and cabin.

Still, while the door solution may seem sensible, there may be technical problems with strengthening doors. A sudden loss of cabin pressure, for example, could blow out the cockpit door, damaging control lines and making flying the plane very difficult. These problems illustrate how complex policymaking is, and why action may seem slower than we might think it should be.

Nor will focusing solely on skyjacking be effective. Terrorists allegedly were studying using crop-dusters for chemical or biological terrorism, while others sought licenses to drive trucks that carry dangerous biological, chemical or nuclear materials and could be used as weapons.

One shudders at the implications, yet, traditional methods — car bombs, for example — remain threatening. Careful planning must consider all these threats.

Many groups and interests will respond to these issues with their own proposed solutions. In a recent National Public Radio interview, Michael Dukakis, Amtrak's vice chairman, suggested rail travel as an alternative to aviation, particularly in the Northeast.

Aviation executives argue that air travel, with stringent yet efficient security, will again become quick and efficient once we implement systems that strike a balance between convenience and effective security.

Some will argue for more spending on military capabilities, while others may focus on intelligence gathering.

Police and security experts already are saying, "We told you so,'' and will redouble efforts to promote anti-terrorism powers. Others say that while security is important, some proposed responses are expensive, will deprive people of civil liberties or will be ineffective.

We may feel that these groups are promoting narrow interests, not the "public interest.'' Some extreme voices will even dismiss as unpatriotic any debate on next steps.

In these trying times, it pays to set aside cynicism about others' motives, and to seek to understand their ideas on their own terms. Some groups or industries may benefit from better security policies, but most sincerely believe their ideas will benefit the public.

A company that sells software that helps detect suspicious financial activity or that sells better airport X-ray machines will benefit from the new demand for its products, but those products will also be important tools against terrorism.

Many groups and industries employ experts in their fields, and we should be thankful for the incredibly creative and knowledgeable people available to our nation as we enter this new anti-terrorism era.

Certainly, we must consider the tradeoffs between effectiveness and efficiency, or between security and liberty. Some may argue that the debates are "merely politics.'' But if we understand "politics'' to mean the process by which we, the people — and our leaders in government and industry — tackle our national problems, we can better understand other people's concerns.

These concerns — about cost, civil liberties and the effectiveness of policy — reflect basic American values of efficiency, competence, and, most of all, fairness. While we aren't perfect in all these aspects, it is the process by which we strive to reflect these values that defines us as a nation.

As these tough issues and possible solutions are debated, our political system will do what is has always done: Advance some ideas and reject others. There will be political winners and losers. But, on balance, if we support the process through which decisions are made and provide input where we can to support better ideas and eliminate poor ones, we will emerge a stronger nation and a stronger democracy.

Tom Birkland is an associate professor of political science, public administration and public policy at the University at Albany, and directs the University's Center for Policy Research. He is the author of "After Disaster,'' a book about the politics of natural and human-caused disasters.