Two similar phrases that seem to mean almost the same thing. Only the attitude of Bush/Cheney, in favor of one and opposed to the other, strongly suggests that they're not related, except, perhaps, in the public mind.
Which may or may not be co-incidental.
Social Security is, of course, a safety net designed to prevent the elderly from falling prey to the varagies of old age and infirmity by providing them with a guaranteed stipend so they can pay someone to look after them. So, in a sense, while the elderly are kept safe, it's society as a whole which is assured or secured--by compensating for services rendered, rather than having to rely on relatives for free labor. And while social support is "secured" and made fast, the elderly are free to locate or relocate themselves wherever their inclination takes them.
This is good. A firm societal commitment insures individual freedom to come and go at will, as their physical capabilities permit.
But that's just the problem. Governments which are focused on keeping social order and stability consider the human propensity to wander disruptive and contrary to their inclinations. Keeping people in their designated location is the first goal of authoritarian rule. If that can't be accomplished with the less mobile elderly, then there's little hope of success with the general popullace. So, even if the pension and welfare system provides a guaranteed source of revenue for special interests, it doesn't make up for the inability to exercise total control. That this is the underlying goal is evident from the fact that all recent program innovations in the health-care component--from health maintenance organizations to the recently established "prescription drug benefit"--have been designed to restrict mobility and choice.
You could argue that it's just human nature to expect something back in exchange for any good or service that's delivered and that, in the case of social service recipients, who have nothing bureaucrats could want, their obedience is the payment. But that would ignore the fact that these bureaucrats who are seeking control are actually being paid by the population at large to deliver a service, defined as an entitlement which the recipients can claim as a right.
But entitlement implies an obligation and the sense of obligation conflicts with the impulse to rule. Which may account for the increasing emphasis on national security, rather than national defense. Providing for the national defense is clearly a government obligation. National security, on the other hand, considering recent events, seems ideally suited to satisfy the government propensity to rule.
In a sense both social security and national security are being used to establish and enforce authoritarian control, rather than render the services intended. Which may well account for why the budgets of both are out of control. While the elderly are somewhat easier to manipulate, especially those with no relatives to champion their case, people of good will may be slow to recognize the national security scam, but at some point the increasing restrictions on their human and civil rights are going to become too much.
It's really quite simple when you think about it. Just as social security is a binding commitment to our elderly, national security seeks to bind (tie down or lock up) the nation. But for what? Once the nation is secured (if that's even possible), aren't we all just sitting ducks? Isn't our safety better guaranteed by keeping on the move?
Perhaps the real difference between social security and national security lies in the fact that old age is a certainty and a safety net a proven benefit when our physical and mental assets inevitably decline. And many of the elderly may even choose to stay where they've been put. Threats to the nation, on the other hand, are not only uncertain, but can't be defended against by locking down the population. Never mind that "securing" the whole population of the nation is an impossible goal and doesn't address where the threats, if there are any, are coming from.
Clearly, national security is certain to fail and imposing additional restraints should be a non-starter. In short, national security should be scrapped and, even if it costs an arm and a leg, the Department of Homeland Security needs to be renamed to more accurately reflect the obligation to PROVIDE for the health, safety and welfare of the nation--charges which are not accomplished by making up more rules and regulations and red tape.
Posted by Hannah at August 15, 2006 06:00 AM