Tiger Patrol

The dismal record of the Bush regime has led a number of my statist conspecifics to begin to question their assumptions about the state. Today, one expressed her concern that Americans seemed willing to expend unlimited sums on anti-terrorism but relatively little on more concrete concerns, such as schools and infrastructure.

She had a theory to explain this, to wit that homeland security was like setting up a "tiger patrol" in her New York City neighborhood. People are appalled and horrified at the idea of being mauled by a tiger or having their children eaten by one, and the authorities might well play on human irrationality in fearing unlikely threats to get approval and funding for an expensive and intrusive tiger patrol. The authorities know that the threat is almost nonexistent; therefore, they don't have to worry about accountability or accomplishing anything. They can spend the tiger patrol money profligately and to political advantage, and they can use the tiger threat to get people to agree to all kinds of restrictions, such as a curfew during "peak" tiger hours. When no tigers are sighted, the authorities can smugly claim success, and if a tiger should show up, as unlikely as it is, they can attribute it to the inability to stop every tiger and secure additional funding for the patrol.

On the other hand, an infrastructure project requires a plan and results in a tangible product. There are way too many opportunities for accountability to be had, and crumbling bridges and levees do not incite as much irrational anxiety as tiger maulings. Look at Siegfried, or was it Roy, for crying out loud! Who wants to suffer an attack like that? My conspecific's analysis was dead on.

I was reminded of one of my favorite episodes of the Simpsons where a bear shows up on Evergreen Terrace. Homer lobbies for a bear patrol ("We're here, we're queer, and we don't want any more bears") which the city of Springfield provides, complete with state of the art helicopters.