September 8, 2003

HEY, CHOIR!:

Survey: Americans still favor security over personal liberties (Judy Putnam, September 8, 2003, Booth Newspapers)

Two years after Sept. 11, 2001, Americans are just as willing to sacrifice personal liberties for security's sake as they were right after the largest terrorist attack in U.S. history, a Michigan State University study finds.

"These results suggest that Americans are not ready to bury their fears of terrorism,'' concludes the report, released today.

MSU political scientists measured public attitudes in a national telephone survey of 1,448 in late fall of 2001. They conducted a second survey of 1,963, including 679 of the original respondents, from January to May.

Researchers asked respondents if they were willing to concede rights to the government -- allowing searches, surveillance, detentions without arrests and other potential intrusions on individual rights -- in order to gain greater security.

Overall, people gave about the same responses as they did in 2001, said MSU political science professor Brian Silver, negating a theory that as time passed, people would be less willing to give up personal liberties.

"We were surprised. We didn't know exactly what would happen. It's surprising to see so little movement in any direction,'' Silver said.


Yet the Democrats are trying to make John Ashcroft their whipping boy for cracking down on the civil libertiies of illegal aliens from the Middle East?

Posted by Orrin Judd at September 8, 2003 9:31 PM
Comments

I'm not aware of what personal liberties I "gave up." It's a lot more hassle to fly these days, but it wasn't the US government that made it so.

Posted by: Harry Eagar at September 8, 2003 10:08 PM

Why, you've given up your liberty to be taken seriously when you stand on the corner and challenge the hedgemony of the fascist warmongering corporatist fundamentalist Bush regime, of course!! It's Ashcroft's fault the people won't listen!!

Posted by: Twn at September 8, 2003 10:16 PM

OJ,

Remind me - which party is supposed to be the party of freedom, and which one security?

Posted by: Jason Johnson at September 8, 2003 10:24 PM

Jason:

Don't confuse physical security with socio-economic.

Posted by: oj at September 8, 2003 11:15 PM

What Harry said - and the airlines brought much of their troubles on themselves, especially in the area of security.

Posted by: jim hamlen at September 9, 2003 12:04 AM

What Jim and Harry said -- other than the FBI guys watching my house every night and the NSA section devoted exclusively to monitoring my telephone lines.

Posted by: Chris at September 9, 2003 7:37 AM

And you just can't tell hijacker or explosion jokes at airport checkins any more....

But more seriously, if the Democrats can convince the voters that Bush engineered September 11th so that he could establish US hegemony over the middle east, coerce the American people to give up their civil liberties, and destroy the American economy, then they ought to have no problems in November 2004.

On the other hand....

Posted by: Barry Meislin at September 9, 2003 8:20 AM

Actually if Bush were to deport 10,000 non-citizen
muslims between now and the election he'll take
50 states no questions.

The American street does not confus defending
American sovereignty and border integrity with
the rights enshrined in the Bill of Rights (the
never have).

Posted by: J.H. at September 9, 2003 9:05 AM

And now Muslim groups in the US have declared their desire to become more involved politically in the face of their "loss of civil liberties." One assumes that they will support and endorse Bush's opponent (they endorsed Bush in 2000), since Bush is the source of all their problems.

50 states is still possible.

Posted by: NKR at September 9, 2003 10:23 AM
« UNFAIR, BUT VERY FUNNY: | Main | ONE & DONE: »