"Dawn of the Daddy State " (The Atlantic)

[LearnedHand]

(Excuse me if this is old news. I just read this article recently.)

http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2004/06/starobin.htm

Anyone read this article by Paul Starobin in The Atlantic? Okay. Now I'm REALLY scared shitless. Check it (emphasis mine):

(snip)
Leaving aside the question of military power, the necessary response to terrorism is not to limit the power of the state but, rather, to bolster it, so as to preserve the basic order without which the defenseless citizen has no prospect of enjoying the splendors of liberty. In the wake of Madrid, in the wake of 9/11, in the wake of suicide bombings in Moscow subway stations and Jerusalem cafés, the state is impelled to become even more intrusive and muscular than it already is. How well today's leaders meet this obligation to construct more-vigilant states is very likely to stand as one of history's most important criteria for assessing their stewardship.

(snip)
Not only do Americans broadly support Bush's Patriot Act, but women—who worry more than men do that they or someone close to them will fall victim to terrorism—tend to view the measure as not tough enough, according to a recent Gallup poll. Europeans are demanding closer policing of their rapidly growing Muslim minority, which now stands at 15 million in the EU.

In short, we are at the dawn of a popularly sanctioned movement toward greater authoritarianism in the domain of what is now fashionably called "homeland security."

(snip -- and here's the REAL kicker)
America illustrates the hazards of the opposite problem: too many constraints on the Daddy State. In particular, Congress—the body positioned between the executive and the people—is proving a serious hindrance. For example, just after 9/11 alarmed legislators sensibly created a Transportation Security Agency, with broad powers to improve airport security. But since then Congress has hamstrung the agency's effort to develop a computerized profiling system that would help identify potentially dangerous passengers....

========================

I read and reread and re-reread this article for some hint of "here's a late April Fool's joke," but there was NONE. This guy is SERIOUS! I'm not sure, even, what to think about The Atlantic's publishing this essay. Where do they stand?

[FDRrocks]

1. uhm.... so Dad's a fascist now?

I gotta have talk with him... tsk tsk

[LearnedHand]

2. Oh, yeah.

That, too. :freak:

[acmavm]

3. Why would this dolt think that just because a person is a woman that

'she' would rather live in a repressive, intrusive society than a man. Because we need protected from the boogey man? Crap, this woman is more afraid of nutcases that write articles like this than anything else.

Just because one doesn't have dangling genetalia doesn't mean that we are any less aware of the structure our government was meant to take when the ground rules were laid out after the break from England. A microbe so small that you have to magnify it 400 times could kill me tomorrow much more easily than an attack by a foreign terrorist. Or a dipshit driving while trying to dial their cell phone. Life is a series of risks, and everday that you wake up just means that you've beaten the ones from the day before. I do not think or want my government to be the biggest danger that I have to face everday.

This guy can kiss my ass. Right now we need protected from our 'Daddy'. He's my biggest worry.

[LearnedHand]

5. Yeah, I noticed that, too

I was so horrified by the rest I haven't yet worked up over that "little" gender-slam.

[DieboldMustDie]

7. Starobin cites a "recent Gallup poll" for this.

:shrug:

[Ms. Clio]

4. Horrifying, especially the bit about Congress

Reminds me of George's fantasies of being a dictator--that's what they want, "Daddy Dictator."

But I've read several wingnut pieces in The Atlantic, so I'm not surprised.

[LearnedHand]

6. Exactly.

That's exactly what I mean (Daddy George, that is). But I've been reading The Atlantic really faithfully for nearly 20 years, and I'm only just in the past year beginning to see seriously wingnut pieces.

That really scares me. I have always counted on The Atlantic's left-bent stance -- even when it published RW screeds just for the sake of letting stupidity stand on its own.

[Ms. Clio]

8. I admit I haven't been nearly such a longtime, faithful reader

But I used to think The Atlantic was at least leftish, too, until about a year or so ago--then I began to see wingnutty pieces that really surprised and disappointed me.

Fortunately we still have Harper's. :)

[neomonkey]

9. Atlantic Monthly

I'm a short-story writer and I was impressed by some stories published in this magazine about 3 years ago. I subscribed thinking it was, at worst, non-partisan. Was I in for a surprise. There are some excellent pieces but they tend to slant right, with a subtlety that draws you in a little too far before you realize you've been suckered.

I can say now I look at AM now as a more intellectual, right-wing and expanded version of The New Republic.

For chrissakes, they regularly publish garbage from that asshole, PJ O'Rourke.

[kaitykaity]

10. Atlantic published "Blind into Baghdad" a while

back. That's the James Fallows piece that Al Franken
swears by.

So it's not all bad.