Managing Fear: The Politics of Homeland Security

Americans want more homeland security than they need. That is the politics of homeland security in a nutshell. It results from two things. First, cognitive biases cause people to worry more about terrorists than they should and to demand more protection from them than cost–benefit analysis recommends. Second, U.S. citizensʼ information about terrorism comes largely from politicians and government organizations with an interest in reinforcing excessive fears. These tendencies create political demand for ill-conceived counterterrorism policies. Few policymakers will buck that demand and fight overreaction to terrorism. But for those willing to look, the history of health and safety regulation and defense policy reveals strategies to limit overreaction. Policymakers can improve communication strategies by promoting a stiff-upper-lip attitude toward terrorism that emphasizes strength, not vulnerability. They can use cost–benefit analysis to justify decisions that limit the provision of defenses. They can design resource-allocating institutions to compare different kinds of risks and remedies against them—making the cost of homeland security measures more transparent. A more cynical approach is to embrace security theater, answering demands for counterterrorism with policies that serve other purposes while holding down spending. All these strategies are used today, but not enough. This essay explains why Americans demand too much homeland security and offers ways to manage the problem. That focus requires limiting discussion of the idea that terrorism is less of a threat than one generally hears. Still, the