Tangible Harm

There is a common dialogue that I've heard a lot during this election season, and it worries me. It goes something like this:

Me: "Aren't you worried about this candidate's stance on this Very Important Social Issue?"
Other person: "All the social issue stuff is just posturing. People are emotional voters, and they need to win those voters over by talking about social issues. But you'll see, as it gets closer, what they really want to talk about is the economy, and Issues That Matter. All the posturing won't matter by then."

Photo: CBS News

There is the first problem, which is the idea that social issues don't matter, only economic issues matter. And that leads right into the second, bigger problem, which of course is what I want to discuss: tangible harm.

This mentality ignores the fact that, while politicians are posturing and saying whatever they feel they need to say in order to gain the "emotional vote," they're spreading and promoting a culture that accepts harmful ideas, and in a culture like that, people tend to invest their resources in causes that promote harmful actions as well. In short, a backwards mentality will support a backwards culture wherein backwards things are commonplace, and as such, people get hurt. Posturing achieves tangible harm.

Border Patrol and the TSA
I had a wonderful conversation with my boyfriend recently that I feel illustrates this point very clearly. We were on a long car trip near the Mexican border and we were stopped for a quick search by the border patrol (this is normal in that area, even if you're not actually crossing the border). This got us on the topic of the constitutionality of the actions taken out regularly by agencies like Border Patrol and the TSA.

Photo: Flickr creative commons

The ineffectiveness of the measures taken out by the TSA at airports is a popular topic of conversation in political and scientific circles. In short, the conclusion that people continue to draw is that the TSA doesn't actually increase security at airports. Bombers, hijackers and terrorists in general can get on an airplane as easily as any common citizen can, and the TSA's implementation of x-rays, scanners, pat-downs and interviews doesn't actually change that. But this is an uncomfortable truth, one that people don't like to face. So, the government funds the TSA, a massively expensive project, to give the appearance of security. This simultaneously gives people peace of mind and the appearance that something is being done about the problem. But both are false, and in the meantime money is wasted.

My boyfriend has been repeating this argument to me for many years now, and for the longest time I just nodded and said "That's fine, it's low on my priority list. Next to a lot of the other backwards laws being proposed, having my suitcase rifled through isn't a huge infraction on my right to privacy." But this time he made his point clearer, and I'm starting to agree with him.

I asked him, if he could only pick one fight, which would it be: the TSA or the "mandatory ultrasound" bills being proposed in multiple states that require women seeking an abortion to undergo a medically unnecessary vaginal sonogram? I sat back and waited, comfortable in my assumption that everyone judges an invasion of privacy involving one's genitals to be more severe than that which involves ones suitcase, but his response surprised me. He said, without hesitation, that he would fight the TSA. This was his explanation:

Photo: Texas Tribune

Culture of Complacency
The TSA has become a commonplace infrastructure in American life, despite it being more or less common knowledge that the airport scanners accomplish nothing. What this means is that we have a nation (and, as a consequence, a planet) full of people who are complacent with the idea that their government can invade their privacy in the name of a ruse, a ploy to create the appearance of security.  This is an acceptable idea to us now, we have been desensitized to it. It is this sort of action that sets the stage for further infractions upon our personal privacy and freedoms. In short: the TSA made the ultrasound bill possible. Without this prerequisite, such a ludicrous, perverse manipulation of the law would be unfathomable. These anti-abortion bills would never have gotten as far as they have.

My boyfriend's point was simply that when you poison the national conversation about personal freedoms, this does noticeable and lasting damage. Words are not just words, they affect what we perceive to be acceptable and normal, and as such can pave the way for more and more backwards legislation.

I've always felt this way, but my boyfriend was able to show me that I was doing triage - attending to the worst wounds first - while knowing full-well that more would simply pop up in their place. Instead, he proposed, we should attack the problem at its root. Propoganda, anti-science thinking and outright lies about one's political agenda confuse and distort the truth, leaving people handicapped when they approach these topics. Once you see this effect taking place, you realize that a complacent attitude toward political posturing contributes in a very real way to quantifiable, tangible harm.