National Defense or Neighborhood Watch?

The Divide Between Citizen and Policymaker Views on Security

A whopping 70% of Americans polled last year (2023) felt insecure in their homes and neighborhoods. 7 out of 10 Americans said they were “…anxious or extremely anxious about keeping themselves and their families safe.¹

At the same time, and in the same year (2023), policymakers budgeted and spent almost $1 trillion (yes, that is “trillion” with a “T”) in federal funds for national “security.” If we add in the additional outlays at state and local levels, American citizen security was funded at a level far exceeding the $1 trillion mark.²

Undoubtedly, our national leaders read polls. They know that the American people are focused on security. As an answer to voter concerns, they spend four times more on security every year than our nearest competitor (China).³ They allocate so much to security that we can conclude (even those of us who are not “math-gifted”) that US Citizen Security is one of the most expensive commodities on the planet.

Apparently, policymakers are listening to the American people… but there is a difference between listening and hearing. Are the American people being heard? If so, how do we explain such polls? How do we account for the expenditure of so much money to so little effect in the eyes of the people?

This post kicks off a series on security that shares a viewpoint that differs from most inside the Beltway. Some may see this viewpoint as muddying the water and conflating two discussions (citizen security and national defense). However, we feel the two are inextricably tied together. For example, less than four thousand Americans have been killed by terrorism since 9/11. While last year alone, an estimated 108,000 were killed by drug overdose.⁴

We ignore the basic security of our citizens in order to fund exquisitely designed weapons of war at our peril.

In Vino Veritas

As we sat down to start our research for the kick-off of this series, we decided to conduct our own poll. Using the Time Machine that we first rented for our adventure with Bill Gates (Bill Gates Beyond Time), we invited a few renowned thinkers over for a glass of wine and presented them with the facts we discussed above:

1. Every year, the United States spends more than the next ten nations combined on security.⁵

2. 70% of Americans do not feel secure. They are not convinced that we are doing enough.

Then, we asked our invited philosophers to help us reconcile the inconsistency of these two facts. What are we doing wrong?

F. Scott Fitzgerald (over a Cabernet Noir from Montmartre) surmised that the United States had finally reached total enlightenment. We can “..simultaneously hold two diametrically opposed facts in our heads and still function.” He was nonplussed by the security conversation but noted that something about the language national leaders use feels purposefully confusing.

Gertrude Stein (laying aside a cigar and picking up her glass of Madeira) agreed to some degree with Fitzgerald and opined that our problem is that "Everybody gets so much information all day long that they lose their common sense." In her view, politicians use terms like security to further their self-interest, so it’s hard to know what is true. Honestly, Gertrude had us at “common sense,” and we were prepared to end the conversation there and pour more wine…

That’s when Inigo Montoya (the philosopher made famous by his witty debates with the Sicilian, Vizzini) cut straight to the heart of the matter. When asked our question, Señor Monytoya poured himself a robust Monastrell and gave us an answer that we didn't expect (but perhaps should have).

Almost pitying our ignorance, Don Inigo observed, “Security? You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."

And obviously, he has the right of it!

A Divide in Definition

British scholar Barry Buzan feels that policymakers purposefully leave the definition of security vague because it’s to their benefit to leave wiggle room around it. He believes that this allows them to take many different positions and still claim that they are strong on security. Nevertheless, we can still gain some insight into policymakers’ points of view by looking at the language that they use to discuss security. If we created a policymaker word-cloud using the term security, it would include words like Threat, Defense, Intelligence, Terrorism, Surveillance, Border, Military, Cybersecurity, Espionage, Counterterrorism, and Nuclear.

On the other hand, citizens have a much more organic feel for security. Citizens prioritize security needs based on their day-to-day interactions. A similar word-cloud made using security for a citizen group would show different priorities and minimal overlap with policymakers. Citizens see their security more aligned with words like Crime, Drugs, Guns, Inflation, Illegal Immigration, Rent, Robbery, Healthcare Costs, Groceries, Gas Prices, and Education.

Neither group is wrong. They simply use the same term (security) to speak about completely different things. They are talking past each other. How does this occur, and does it even need to be fixed? -It must be fixed.-

Security (like strategy) is a significant touchstone term that has a mix of vague uses attached to it. Unfortunately, for policymakers, vague is not in vogue with citizens. For better or worse, the Information Age has given citizens instant access to data that drives their beliefs. -truth and alternative facts-

In such an atmosphere, vague definitions are dangerous to our democracy. Policymakers' effort to appeal to everyone with vague language pleases no one and only increases citizen distrust and frustration with the government.

As we always try to do in our research, we start at the beginning, looking back at our founding documents. Those documents remind us that words matter, and none matter more to citizens and policymakers than those that laid out the design of our nation.

How Did the Founders Define Security?

In a recent post (Strategic Amendments), I looked at the Constitution of the United States as a strategic document created by the Founders, as a roadmap for continuously working to perfect the Union. As I revisited that post, I found that the Founders provided very clear guidance on how they viewed security. They were as painfully clear and purposeful about security as they were about every aspect of their writing. No one understood the importance of carefully selected language better than our Founders. They parsed and nit-picked every word, debating even the placement of a single comma in essential documents.

The Strategic Purpose of government, as laid out in the Constitution, is to continuously “Work to form a more perfect Union.”

The strategic lines of effort that they laid out are (in order of precedence):

1. Establish Justice

2. Ensure domestic Tranquility

3. Provide for the common defense

4. Promote the general Welfare

5. Secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.

The Founders considered citizen security to be the first function of government. They prioritized establishing justice and ensuring domestic tranquility above any other effort. Only after assuring citizen security did the Founders direct us to provide for the common defense.

Of course, it is rare for anyone in Washington to think about the Constitution as a strategic document. Instead, policymakers see the Constitution (and the overwhelming number of supporting texts left to us by the Founders) as both a set of theoretical precepts about freedom and a set of rules that limit the government’s power.

Admittedly there is great value in limiting government power to ensure individual freedom. However, focusing on that alone as the most crucial part of the document sells the Founders short. They didn’t just lay out a set of precepts designed to protect individual rights and inculcate democratic values into government; they left us a strategic roadmap.

Over the next few posts, we will explore how national security would look if we started our approach to security based on the governing strategy laid out by the Founders. Then, we will try to understand how/if that dovetails with the view of security put forth by our policymakers today. Along the way, we’re going to ask some tough questions. Finally, we will take some academic risks and propose remedies and recommendations for how we should look at security as part of the larger national strategy.

Ultimately, I believe that as a nation, we can develop a much more integrated National Strategy. Such holistic use of resources and methods will better serve the American people.

We hope you enjoy the journey and the conversation.

1. American Psychiatric Association. Americans Express Worry Over Personal Safety in Annual Anxiety and Mental Health Poll. 10 May 2023. 27 November 2023. <https://www.psychiatry.org/News-room/News-Releases/Annual-Anxiety-and-Mental-Health-Poll-2023>.

2. Fiscal Year (F.Y.) 2023 Budget-in-Brief, United States Department of Homeland Security, https://www.dhs.gov/publica0on/fy-2023-budget-brief. Accessed 28 November 2023.

3. Norton, Tom. Fact Check: Does China Spend More Than U.S. on Defense? 27 January 2023. 27 November 2023.<https://www.newsweek.com/china-us-defense-spending-military-1777128>.

4. “Products - Vital Statistics Rapid Release - Provisional Drug Overdose Data,” May 7, 2024. https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/drug-overdose-data.htm.

5. Peter G. Peterson Foundation. U.S. Defense Spending Compared to Other Countries. 24 April 2023. 27 November 2023. <https://www.pgpf.org/chart-archive/0053_defense-comparison>.