When I was in college, my program had an arts requirement, that is, one needed several performance credits to graduate. I chose to take acting classes, and I confess: I sucked. But I did learn something about how the art of acting is to be found in so many parts of the rest of our world, even those in which truth telling and reality are supposedly paramount. I believe the saying goes, “If you can’t afford a meal, go see a show. If you can’t afford a show, go to the zoo. If you can’t afford the zoo, go see a politician.” I’ll let you ponder that order for a minute.

That said, Matt jumps on a bandwagon I’m proud to say we’ve been all over for some time now here at Corrente. It’s not Homeland Security, it’s The Homeland Security Show on Fox. Matt is 100% correct in pointing out that Republican policies on “securing our X” are usually ineffective, costly, wasteful and do little more than feed the fear-guzzling base addicted to the adrenalin rush of ’hate/fear/kill.’ Show me the last 100 million spent on new “security” programs, and I promise you I’ll show you a Republican crony now richer by 99 million, and some Potemkin village approximation of a device/program/training that makes no one safer. Moore pointed this out in Farenheit 911, in which he noted that for all the talk about borders and increased watchfulness, no real money has gone to places that are literally wide open to attack.

Leaving aside the question of how much more likely it is we will be attacked thanks to six years of Bush, it’s important to realize that reframing the security issue is critical for a lot of reasons. One includes that it is a guaranteed winner in practically every part of the electorate. Real security reform can be framed in such a way that no one would object to, and better still, ways in which Republicans not only cannot object to, but will be embarrassed by, as Republican corruption and mismanagment are usually at the heart of the need for reform.
There are a couple of ways to frame any reform idea/item, depending on in what area of the security universe it comes from.

-Protect the troops. This is the easiest, and everyone can get behind it. Obviously, stories about no armor or equipment that doesn’t work on the battlefield are horrors that no one wants to hear. I’m fairly sure this is on the Democratic agenda, and I expect fireworks during the committee hearings. KBR has a lot to answer for, and showing they have the blood of American troops on their hands will go a long way towards burying this iteration of the Republican party. Lest we forget, Rummy first made his mark in politics…by making a huge stink over fraud and waste by contractors in Vietnam

-Protect our shores. I wanted to call this “save the children” but I suppose that’s too much. The response to the Dubai port deal showed that Amurkins don’t like it when foreign brown people control our ports. I’m not going to get into the reality of who does and does not “secure” our ports and what nationalities they may be (Hint: it’s not as red white and blue as you may believe). But truly protecting our shores and borders is more than just about building walls and (not) x-raying some containers. It’s about union jobs for Americans, bringing home the troops so they can do their jobs here instead of getting shot at and accomplishing nothing over there, improving the environment by modernizing facilities, the list goes on and on. I hate the militarization of this country under Bush and his war on brown people, but I can’t deny it’s a significant social and economic force. Thus, it’s time to bring some Democratic common sense into the mix, and take advantage of huge budgets that are going to pass no matter what people like me think. That money may as well be spent on hiring Americans to do jobs that pay well and make a real difference, instead of going to Republican do-nothing cronies like Kerik.

-Protect ourselves by being smart. Again, this is already happening, but Democrats need to take the reigns and make the money being spent more effective. That means an end to firing gay military translators, increasing student load and grant budgets to get more of our young into science and culture programs preparing them for “security” careers, funding universities and research centers that look into the actual causes of terrorism and not whatever fear-factor of the month is popular with Brookings and AEI, reducing ridiculous restrictions on foreign workers and students such that they want to come here and work, learn and teach us about their homes, you can see where I’m going with this. But part of the “military/security” budget is already earmarked for educational programs. Democrats just need to do a little redirecting, and the progressive strongholds of the educational world will benefit.

I could keep going, but I’ve got to run, so I’ll end by saying that Matt is right, and we need to pressure Democrats to do all the things I’ve mentioned and more, and at the same time, continue with the project of mocking the Tuff Guy attitude of Republican “security experts.” Every single time I’ve read about a new Republican program, at the heart of it is a sick joke, combining the worst of ineptitude, ineffectiveness, cronyism, and most of the time, results that are worse than if nothing had been done. cough, hookers and limos, cough, mistresses in high rise apartments, cough Pointing this out at every turn will really help deflate the “Republicans are the real security experts” meme. Just for fun, and for Lambert, here’s a Wiki entry which explains why I like the more elegant formulation of Security Kabuki instead of Matt’s use of “security theatre:”

Kabuki (歌舞伎 kabuki?) is a form of traditional Japanese theater. Kabuki theater is known for the stylization of its drama and for the elaborate make-up worn by its performers.
The word kabuki is in fact believed to derive from the verb kabuku, meaning “to lean”, or “to be out of the ordinary”, hence kabuki can be interpreted to mean “avant-garde” or “bizarre” theatre.

The raucous and often violent atmosphere of kabuki performances attracted the attention of the ruling Tokugawa shogunate, and in 1629 women were banned from the stage for the stated purpose of protecting public morals. Some historians suggest that the government was also concerned by the popularity of kabuki plays that dramatized ordinary life (rather than the heroic past) and enacted recent scandals, some involving government officials.[citation needed]

A tryst between a man and a youth, probably a kabuki actor.[image]

Young kabuki actors were often sought-after by townsmen who followed shudo.
Since kabuki was already so popular, young male actors took over after women were banned from performing. Along with the change in the performers’ gender came a change in the emphasis of the performance: increased stress was placed on drama rather than dance. Their performances were equally ribald, however, and they too were available for prostitution (also for male customers). Audiences frequently became rowdy, and brawls occasionally broke out, sometimes over the favors of a particularly handsome young actor, leading the shogunate to ban young male actors in 1652.[1]

Sound familiar? Go head, creative readers: find your own example of Republican “security Kabuki” and share it. Some day, I have no doubt we’ll see better actors than the ones in office, on stage, where life can imitate art that imitates life that imitates art…