Good post, Matt, and good framing.

In NYC we've had random subway searches for the last week or so.  The polling was quite clear - people opposed the concept, but not because of abstract "civil liberties" concerns or anything like that.  It's quite obvious that people would go along with intrusive security measures provided they actually accomplished something.

No, people opposed the searches because they were, and are, flat-out stupid.  The vast majority of subway stations have no searches.  If you're a terrorist with a bomb, and you walk down the steps to the subway only to see a table of policemen searching people before they get on the subway, all you'd do is walk a couple blocks to the next station where there's no search.  There's no chance of catching an actual evildoer, and there's no chance of a deterrent effect since it's trivially easy to avoid a search if you don't want one.

All this accomplishes is making the government look busy, look like it's trying to stop terrorism.  Maybe some tourists who don't realize how easy it would be to avoid a search feel comforted by it, that's about the only benefit I can think of.

The whole thing is absolutely classic Security Theater.

Wasn't that Tester's unstated point in his debate with Burns?  The Patriot Act doesn't really do anything to make us safer.  It's all just fear mongering.

Amen Brother!!  This fits with what I keep telling people.  It is not possible to kill all of the terrorists in the world.  If it was a possibility and we had to relinquish our civil liberties to do it, we would come out the loser.  The terrorists would all be martyrs and Jeffersonian government would disappear from the planet in the process.  In other words, if 9/11 changes everything then the terrorists have already won.

Jeffersonian government is the best government devised by mankind because it is based on doctrine which says "The government may not, the government may not, the government may not"  over and over again while most of the forms of government that preceded it where based on doctrine which said "the citzens must or must not" over and over again.  Security theatre, like the GOP, is stuck in a pre-1776 mindset.

Since when do American's give up their First & Fourth Amendment Rights to free speech and unreasonable searches by flying within the continental US. This theater of security is so laughable...

Who has made sure that the Airport employees have had background checks?
Does anyone screen the cargo?
Is there any security for the food service providers to the airplanes?

TSA agents know that what they are doing is NOT doing anything to make travelers safer. The most offending thing about flying today is having TSA agents SCREAMING at me(take your shoes off, put your computer & other video equipt). When is it ok to scream instructions to Americans, some who fly weekly.

I have tried to explain who unsafe it is for flyer's to take their shoes off and walk through the security checkpoints either in sox or barefoot. Just that process is a bio hazard, what if someone was spreading bio agent and thousands of travelers could pick it up and spread it across the globe.

I have a question.... Why hasn't the terrorist level been increased with 4 British Airlines tested positive for Radiological material?

On further thought, this also fits well with one of my favorite stratgeic ideas.  The GOP has become the party of intrusive government.  This gives the democratic party a chance to take a lasting majority by appealling to libertarians who are frustrated with the GOP for it's intrusiveness.  Once the reality theatre concept gains some traction and people are thinking about what a bad thing intrusive government is, there is a natural next step...

Some recent conversations have centered around what democrats should do to pick up some of the religious vote.  I think that instead we should concentrate on letting the GOP's religious pandering be the reason that they lose repeatedly.  Pidgeon whole them in it.  Religious pandering neccessarily means intrusive government.  Schiavo, gay marriage, abortion, and several others are perfect examples of how religious pandering leads to intrusive government.  "GOP says you may not"  Dems say "You can decide for yourself what is right."

Once people start thinking about the loss of liberty from security thaeatre, they will be ready to hear about loss of liberty do to failure to maintain a separation of church and state.  What's more, once the GOP loses specifically because of religious pandering they will stop it.  Then we can all go back to obeying The Constitution and protecting freedom of conscience for all through separation of church and state.

Great post.  

We need to subject homeland security policies to the same scrutiny that we do to other government programs to separate the effective measures from security theater as you call it.

We have been putting every job training program and every welfare to work program through rigorous trials, often with randomized experiments, to determine whether they achieve their objectives.  Why can't we do the same to security measures?  

But, you say, there have been no attacks on U.S. soil since 9/11?  We can't afford to expose anyone to attack?

Granted, the methodological problems are harder because we're trying to prevent a rare event (deaths from attacks) instead of promote a common one (employment).  

But we're pretty smart. We should be able to apply benefit-cost principles and sophisticated research resources toward determining whether any of this stuff reduces the frequency and severity of attacks.  Until then, we're wasting money and spreading fear, essentially doing the terrorists' work for them.

Drug legalization should be (though I am sure it will not be) a major part of building a progressive America.  As a citizen of Baltimore, I see first hand every day the effects of this disastrous, draconian policy.  Our cities are dying, and the disease is the illegal drug trade.  Of the 270 or so murders in Baltimore City this year, nearly 80% of the victims and suspects were involved in the drug trade.  

I know this is a hush-hush issue, one that doesn't win elections and could indeed lose them.  However, it is morally reprehensible to allow this illegal drug trade to continue to claim our young men and women.  Drugs must me made legal and become integrated into our legal economy.  Along with this, fighting urban poverty and improving urban schools must follow.  Whole generations are being lost in our cities.  Ending the war in Iraq is a priority, but ending our own 30 year war at home should be close behind.

"kabuki." a little too esoteric for a meme/framing, but a personal favorite to describe so much of what our government "does."

from a section of the wiki entry on "kabuki:"

The raucous and often violent atmosphere of kabuki performances attracted the attention of the ruling Tokugawa shogunate, and in 1629 women were banned from the stage for the stated purpose of protecting public morals. Some historians suggest that the government was also concerned by the popularity of kabuki plays that dramatized ordinary life (rather than the heroic past) and enacted recent scandals, some involving government officials.[citation needed]

A tryst between a man and a youth, probably a kabuki actor.[image]

Young kabuki actors were often sought-after by townsmen who followed shudo.
Since kabuki was already so popular, young male actors took over after women were banned from performing. Along with the change in the performers' gender came a change in the emphasis of the performance: increased stress was placed on drama rather than dance. Their performances were equally ribald, however, and they too were available for prostitution (also for male customers). Audiences frequently became rowdy, and brawls occasionally broke out, sometimes over the favors of a particularly handsome young actor, leading the shogunate to ban young male actors in 1652.[1]

as i said, it's too esoteric to catch on, but all the qualities are there. youth/man love, prostitution, ribal behavior, scandal, and the emphasis on drama. that's what we get in the halls of power, not "governance" or "legislating."

I'd love for any significant group to take up the cause of ending Security Theater (at least as Bruce defines it; I'm not as certain of your attempted re-definition above) however, I've seen very few proposals to that effect. John Kerry made a few such proposals early in his presidential bid, but later dis-avowed them when they played poorly in the press. Most of the Democratic proposals (and some of the 9/11 commission proposals) appear to be different kinds of Security Theater ("Let's scan all containers entering this country"), not an elimination of Security Theater. The "Real Security Act of 2006" did not appear to be an exception - it presumes particular tactics and methods ("a Movie-Plot Threat") that the terrorists "will use", ignore the fact that implementing them just makes the terrorists more likely to use other tactics and methods.

see http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/20 06/04/announcing_movi.html
for a list of dozens of Movie-Plot Threats. A later post on that blog identifies the winners.

The right-wing is entirely about Security Theater and nothing more.

And I think their obsession with theater doesn't stop with security; it is much more than that.  It seems to me that many of the folks on the right (not necessarily the campaign managers, but the rank and file) believe that all you need to run a campaign is a nice smile and a charming personality.

In any case, it seems to me that what you're suggesting is that we attempt to frame security policy as a debate between our approach: "reality based security policy" and theirs: "security theater".

To do a bit of an aside, this approach fits into a larger context.  There's an interesting debate going on at Street Prophets these days about what the mantra of the religious left should be - what its political and theological message should be.  I haven't written it up yet, but I plan to soon write a post about a theological message of honesty and inquiry.  In this context, reality-based security fits perfectly.

However, I think the phrase "reality-based security" is a bit too easy and meaningless as well.  What it says is that we support a particular process for arriving at security policy: study the threats to security, investigate options for mitigating those threats, evaluate downsides to those options, come to a decision, etc.  Actually it's quite a boring process, as it entails essentially common sense and just a bit more work than what basic competence requires.

What it doesn't say is what kind of options we tend to favor.  In foreign policy, do we favor diplomacy, preventative and strategically targeted foreign aid, economic sanctions, limited warfare, all-out guns-blazing warfare, or what?  I think it's clear that most progressives favor some mix of the first three options in foreign policy, and a very limited stew of the last few.  But that's not a purely reality-based policy, since it tips the scale a bit.  Progressives favor assessing security threats and weighing potential options baaed on their potential disadvantages; but they also are predisposed to favor certain options over others.

In short, I think Security Theater is a great way to describe right wing approaches to security, but its implied opposite ("reality based security policy") is not a great way to describe progressive approaches to security.  We need a little something extra.

I do not agree that Security Theater, as I understand it, or the terms of the debate were crafted in the 1960s.  

By the 1960s, Security Theater already dominated our national discourse.  The completely fictitious and utterly meaningless 'missile gap' was a big issue in the 1960 election.  The Viet Nam War and LBJ's belief that he had to escalate it or face charges of 'losing Viet Nam' was Security Theater.

This all began in the aftermath of WWII and the apparent success of the New Deal.  The generation coming of age at that time had known no other world other than FDR's world.  And they were very happy with it.

The Republicans, in danger of fading into history, began to make charges of treason and weakness against the Democrats.  It worked.  They have been singing the same song ever since.

Security Theater endured not just because of its success with the electorate.  It was funded and promoted by massive corporations that owed their existence, let alone their steady flow of income, to massive government spending on Security Theater.

In a hundred years or more, Americans, if there is still a country of people who call themselves by that name, will realize it was all a sham.  It will be little noted by anyone other than historians, however.  The question of why any free people would make those choices will be a puzzle.  But it will be like contemporary historians examining why the great mass of a Europeans, who considered themselves to be Catholic Christians, put up with the Borgia Popes, or why so many people enlisted for the Crusades.