Domestic Terrorism and the Influence on Democracy and Freedom From Fear.

Originally written for an English Critical Thinking class at Diablo Valley College.

---

Fear is one of the strongest emotions that we experience as humans. Not only does it create a sensational aspect in the mind like fight or flight instincts, but we also experience physical aspects of fear that manifest in various forms including sweating, dry mouth, and dizziness. (Neal, Brandi) It is an emotion that can influence leaders, laws and even the way the people vote. In the 1941 State of the Union Address, Franklin D. Roosevelt gave an intense speech to a fearful United States in response to WWII, in which we find the topic of this paper. President Roosevelt lists four freedoms that every democracy should grant its people and the last was the Freedom from Fear defined as: “worldwide reduction of armaments to such a point and in such a fashion, that no nation will be in a position to commit an act of physical aggression against any neighbors.” (FDR, ‘The Four Freedoms)

Today, fear has changed – people have evolved, society with it, and so have their fears. Various articles, studies and media outlets report that terrorism has been consistently ranked in public opinion as one of the greatest threats to our country in response to the fear of it. Yet, is this rightfully so? The research conducted for this paper concludes that although foreign terrorism remains a problem for the United States, it is not to the extent that domestic terrorism does. Meanwhile, our leaders push an agenda like “The War on Terror”, that not only creates bi- partisan division in leadership in Washington D.C. but, incites fear in the people of the United States. Executive Administrations exaggerate the effects of international terrorism within our country thus impeding on the ideal of Freedom from Fear by ignoring the bigger issue of home- grown and domestic terrorism faced within the borders of the United States, pushing votes and partisanship in their favor.

9/11 was the turning point for the United States on the International stage, considering that we heightened security for entering the country, and created one of the most funded and disastrous campaigns of the 21st century, “The War on Terror”. In an exponential fashion, the last three Presidential Administrations (Bush, Obama, and Trump) in light of the war on terror have willingly placed the United States at the forefront of this war, in some cases with reason and in some with little to no discretion – for example the Trump administration has “carried out more airstrikes during its first 100 days than the Obama administration did in all of 2015 and 2016”. (Zekulin, Michael) We, as constituents of this country are fed the rhetoric that the dangers – especially regarding the middle east and Islamic inspired militias – of international terror as detrimental to our existence and if not acted upon now, our democracy will perish. More recently the Trump campaign for presidency embodied this idea, but the Obama campaign to some degree did the same. Yet, reported by Our World in Data, the number of terrorism related incidents (international) has been on a downward trend up until 2015, with a bit of an unsubstantial increase in 2016; the number of deaths by terrorism has been under 100 people up to 2016 (where the data stops reporting). (Terrorism) Also reported by Karen Foerstel, terrorism in 2017 fell for the 3rd consecutive year. (Foerstel, Karen) Given these low numbers, especially in comparison to countries like Iraq, Syria, and Somalia just to name a few, why do our leaders make international terrorism such a key point in their political campaigns, and a main aspect of resource allocation and budgeting for military expenses, when there is substantial evidence that something more pressing is to be acted upon?

Stephen Paddock in Las Vegas, Nevada; Omar Mateen in Orlando, Florida; Nikolas Jacob Cruz in Parkland, Florida; Adam Lanza in Newtown, Connecticut. That list begins to name a few of the recent domestic terror attacks on U.S. soil and their perpetrators, of which the

warzone is not a battlefield but schools, nightclubs, theatres, and concerts. In a research study conducted by Lin Ping-I entitled ‘What Have We Learned from the Time Trend of Mass Shootings in the U.S.’, it is found that results over the last three decades, with rigorous statistical analysis, suggest an increase in domestic terrorist attacks. (Lin, Ping-I., et al.) Meanwhile, Washington continues to look overseas at problems occurring in other countries and a mere glance is placed upon some of the worst catastrophes of this generation. This same research also suggests that a possible “contagion effect” occurs in response to these atrocities where it becomes even more likely that another domestic terrorist attack will happen in the “proximal future” because of the vast media coverage and social response to these horrific events. (Lin, Ping-I., et al.) One of the key aspects of these kinds of domestic attacks on our fellow Americans is the lack of a similar motivation. Most of, if not all, of the perpetrators of these incidents are killed by themselves, or by law enforcement, leaving an unknown motivation. Therefore, most of these terrorist become ‘normal’ people that for some reason fell off. This is why the attention is not focused on incidents of this caliber happening in our cities, at our events, and in our schools. (Kampmark, Binoy) The lack of motivation means that there is no tangible solution for this kind of terrorism and once again our media will flood the mind of the American people with images of the victim’s families and the story of the event for a week or maybe two and we return back to our scheduled programming.

Along with the ‘contagion effect’ found by Lin Ping-I’s study and the lack of motivational aspects for most of the domestic terrorists in our country, our legislation continues with little to no action. In countries where various militias and anti-democratic organizations are working, our country has little to no power. In Iraq, we cannot establish stricter more effective gun laws in order to decrease the number of civilian towns captured by extremist groups; In

Somalia, we lack the power to establish solid government or create a solid school system to encourage reason and logic instead of violence. In Syria, we cannot create systems to gauge the mental health of our public and decide if there is a problem. Listed prior, are all components that Robert Malley and Jon Finer depict in their article on the “Shadow of 9/11” to help better these countries that international terrorist groups are located in. (Malley, Robert and Finer, Jon) With better allocation of funding and pivoting our partisanship in an introspective direction these are all aspects that could help our own issue of domestic terror. How long will it be until events like these continue to rise and the public becomes completely uncertain of where they can be safe at? In order to gain some sort of public opinion of my own to write this paper, I asked about 30 people on campus (of which were around 20-30 years old), which was a more prominent issue in our country: international (and international inspired) terrorism or domestic terrorism. The results were almost completely unanimous in that domestic terrorism is the greater issue.

Lastly, a quote found in the article by Binoy Kampmark seems to put the situation into perspective, “the man with the gun is king, if only for a brief and spectacularly bloody period of time”. No solid answer is present for the issue of domestic terrorism so far but if our leaders and administration give the time of day into discussing some of the remedies for one of the revolving issues of the late 20th and early 21st centuries, then maybe an answer can be discussed. Instead of promoting fear and using the issues of other countries, projecting that onto the American people, address the issue causing fear now. How many more of our fellow Americans need to die in these domestic attacks to enact action? Executive administration should be leading action in the direction that public opinion seems fit by addressing home-grown and domestic terrorism and creating a plan of action, instead of utilizing fear of international terrorism against its constituents and impeding on a democratic societies’ Freedom from Fear.

---

Works Cited...

“FDR, ‘The Four Freedoms," Speech Text.” Voices of Democracy, Admin /Wp- Content/Uploads/2014/07/Vod-Logo.png, voicesofdemocracy.umd.edu/fdr-the-four- freedoms-speech-text/.

Kampmark, Binoy. “The Violence in Making America Great Again.” Eureka Street, vol. 27, no. 19, Sept. 2017, pp. 19–21. EBSCOhost, search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=125964844&site=ehost-live.

Foerstel, Karen. “Is Isis Still a Major Terrorist Threat?” CQ Researcher, 15 Oct. 2018. Lin, Ping-I., et al. “What Have We Learned from the Time Trend of Mass Shootings in the

U.S.?” PLoS ONE, vol. 13, no. 10, Oct. 2018, pp. 1–13. EBSCOhost,

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0204722. Neal, Brandi. “10 Surprising Ways Fear Affects Your Body.” Bustle, Bustle, 13 Nov. 2018,

www.bustle.com/p/10-physical-symptoms-of-fear-that-may-surprise-you-9079164. Malley, Robert, and Jon Finer. EBSCOhost,

search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=khh&AN=131477897&site=hrc-live.

Accessed 6 Nov. 2018 “Terrorism.” Our World in Data, University of Maryland, ourworldindata.org/terrorism. Zekulin, Michael. “Endgames: Improving Our Understanding of Homegrown

Terrorism.” Studies in Conflict & Terrorism, vol. 39, no. 1, Jan. 2016, pp. 46– 66. EBSCOhost, doi:10.1080/1057610X.2015.1084161.