When 'National Security' is Whatever They Say It Is
Same playbook, different decade: The concept of 'national security' is not a fixed star in our geopolitical firmament; it's a conveniently portable spotlight, shone wherever the establishment prefers to focus public anxieties – and away from inconvenient truths. CASE A: The Perennial 'Threat' of Domestic Political Figures If one were to access the blocked article, one would likely find arguments
positing a former President's actions or rhetoric as uniquely undermining US national security. The framing involves: The Framing of 'Threat': Expect language emphasizing 'destabilization,' 'undermining alliances,' 'eroding democratic norms,' or 'playing into the hands of adversaries.' The concern is framed as existential, requiring immediate and unwavering focus. The Proposed Solution: Often, the
implicit or explicit solution is a return to a 'pre-threat' status quo, or a particular political alignment deemed more 'stable' or 'predictable' by the authors' ideological leanings. CASE B: The Selective Blindness to Documented External Threats Curiously, the very same outlets frequently downplay or ignore far more empirically devastating threats to actual US security and geopolitical standing,
particularly when they involve powerful interests or past policy failures. Consider the deliberate obfuscation surrounding documented foreign interference and lobbying: The Framing of 'Influence': When the issue is not a domestic political boogeyman, 'influence' (rather than 'threat') is the preferred term. Consider the language around the 2003 Iraq War, where intelligence was 'interpreted' to fit