 
|
|
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
If the government cries wolf too often, will people become more depressed than alert
Sunday, November 04, 2001
By Ann McFeatters
WASHINGTON -- The normally cheerful man at the flower shop was disconsolate. "If we're going to die, at least we should be happy-go-lucky beforehand," he said sadly. "Now we just worry all the time."
He was expressing how upset he was at the series of vague FBI warnings that something might somewhere might happen again sometime.
Probably no decision has been more debated within the Bush administration about the war on terrorism than whether to warn Americans of the possibility of more terrorism without telling them anything specific. On two occasions, Attorney General John Ashcroft and FBI Director Robert Mueller have gone before TV cameras to warn of a new "credible" threat of more terrorism. But, they add, that's about all they can say.
Ann McFeatters is National Bureau chief for the Post-Gazette and The Blade of Toledo, Ohio. Her e-mail address is amcfeatters@nationalpress.com.
One reason for issuing such vague warnings is, obviously, to keep everyone on alert on the theory that a terrorist act might be thwarted by vigilance. This would be the Hollywood movie scenario whereby someone low on society's totem pole sees something unusual, doggedly pursues the anomaly in the face of ridicule and saves the world.
Another reason is that if another terrorist episode occurred and there had been no warning, the government would lose credibility with citizens who would say, "You thought something might happen. Why didn't you warn us?"
On the other hand, as a result of the warnings, millions of Americans are having nightmares, looking suspiciously at neighbors who aren't just like them, changing their lifestyles, indulging in riskier behavior on the theory it doesn't matter, frightening their children, feeling depressed and overburdening police with calls for help they don't need.
The lad who cried wolf too often -- and then perished when a real wolf came for dinner -- pops to the mind.
"I can appreciate the concern," says beleaguered Homeland Security Director Tom Ridge. "But I do think when we have credible multiple sources suggesting that America will be a target, it is still better to perhaps reiterate the previous alert."
The nation's mayors are not convinced. They complain that they, their police and fire chiefs and their emergency preparedness authorities have no idea what to do when Washington cries, "Be wary." So they lock glass elevators, put guards on tunnels and reservoirs, stock up on smallpox vaccine and antibiotics and turn on CNN or Fox.
Sen. Ted Kennedy, D-Mass., who has saluted President Bush and his handling of the two-front war on terrorism so far -- even calling the president "inspiring" -- nonetheless is uneasy about the administration's decision to ratchet up the alert level.
"I don't know that it [issuing new warnings] does much good," Kennedy said.
"I don't know, personally, how to get on higher alert," he said, only half-joking.
Kennedy said that when the lights went out on his street recently, his wife was immediately convinced it was terrorism. "Citizens do become alarmed, especially children," he said, adding he's concerned about the increasing anxiety he sees in children who already "have a lot on their plates."
Life on the home front has rarely been so uncertain and subject to disruption by the changing headlines. Public officials are unable to be credible when they try to reassure Americans that they are safe, despite more than a dozen cases of anthrax, because they don't know what's happening.
Bush tries repeatedly to tell the American people that the war on both fronts is going well and that there really is a new strategy to deal with anthrax, airline security, suicide bombers sent by The Evil One, suspicious mail and vague threats down the road.
To keep the "fabric of society strong," his spokesman says, the optimistic Bush goes to baseball games. Meanwhile, his vice president is secluded in an "undisclosed location" -- in case the unthinkable happens, the government goes on.
Maybe there's a lot they aren't telling us. But, more probably, they don't know a lot more than they're telling us. And their tactic of telling us to be ever more careful feeds national apprehension but does little concrete -- except to give Washington a chance to say "We told you so" if the evil ones break through the nation's defenses again.
It is, of course, a no-win situation. Americans like feeling they are in control of their lives but they are getting conflicting signals. We're told the risk of an average citizen being hurt by terrorists remains minuscule but also that each citizen must be constantly vigilant.
Constant vigilance to a vague, unseen threat is exhausting and may in itself breed a false sense of security.
