The Malleability of Security

National security is primarily the boogeyman of domestic and foreign policy-making. Say those two words, and policymakers can adopt any measure they see fit. National security has always remained at the forefront of US political discussions, especially with the evolution of threats within our world today. As addressed in NSC-68, national security involved the re-establishment of democratic institutions and the eradication of Soviet influence from the satellite states. From 1947-1991, the US's primary concern for safety was the threat of Soviet influence and the procurement of nuclear weapons. Concerned with maintaining superpower status, the US focused on building up intelligence communities and strengthening the country's weapons programs. National security within the context of the Cold War took on a different meaning than it ever had before. With the passing of the National Security Act of 1947, the federal government was able to expand its powers further into policing the public sector. The establishment of the CIA broadened the authority of national security initiatives as it became the first civilian intelligence-gathering agency. Individual rights to privacy were first threatened by this act made in the name of national security. In doing so, the US government started down the slippery slope of security measures.

 "National security" can take on different meanings for every era of history. Initially, it meant the securement of our physical borders as a means of establishing sovereignty. In today's age, it completely diverges from that primary definition, in that it is now used to justify the reduction of civilian privacy and the destabilization of regions, such as the Middle East. With each decade, and subsequently, each administration, there are different threats to expunge. In the 1980s, it was the threat of the Soviet Union; in the early 2000s, it was the threat of the Taliban and Al-Qaeda. Now in the late 2010s, it is the threat of ISIS and homegrown terrorists such as those who perpetrated the Orlando and Las Vegas shootings. Despite the ever-growing threats of domestic terrorism within the US, many governmental institutions are reluctant to classify these threats as acts of terrorism because they don't fit within the stereotype with which we have defined it. National security has grown to encompass numerous issues within the past two decades but has ultimately failed to recognize the more realistic threats to our democratic society. Most of the measures made in the name of "national security" have been made in response to terrorist attacks, namely those that transpired on 9/11. While 9/11 was an attack of horrific proportions, there has not been nearly as many attacks in the past two decades, or number or of destruction, to justify the expansion of surveillance. The term "national security" has become so malleable in our political and social institutions that it has become the main deciding factor in domestic and foreign policy. With the transition of political power every four years in the United States, different issues come to the forefront of our political and economic goals. For a Republican administration such that of Donald Trump, national security issues might involve reducing ISIS gains in the Middle East or China's growing political power in the international community. A more liberal administration would probably add topics of climate change or foreign influence in federal elections to their list of national security issues.  In this context, I understand what Wolfers meant in that national security often loses sight of its true meaning when applied to a broad spectrum of topics. However, national security is applicable to the protection of a nation-state, including its citizens, economy, and institutions, which any of these issues above could be categorized.