Later, the president would say that he had failed to fully appreciate the fear many Americans were experiencing about the possibility of a Paris-style attack in the U.S...But he has never believed that terrorism poses a threat to America commensurate with the fear it generates...Obama frequently reminds his staff that terrorism takes far fewer lives in America than handguns, car accidents, and falls in bathtubs do. Several years ago, he expressed to me his admiration for Israelis’ “resilience” in the face of constant terrorism, and it is clear that he would like to see resilience replace panic in American society.
[Okay, first comments: I guess thinking back on it there was more fear in America over Paris than I felt at the time. Obama was in Turkey. But I'm so out of touch. Grant that for now. To me, more ominous was San Bernardino: Paris copycat; on American soil; by Muslim American citizen, radicalized; radicalized by recent immigrant wife...Okay...It's coming back to me...To me the thing that made Paris so traumatic was seeing the blind fear in the French people in the days afterward, the the fear of fear itself, running through the streets when a light bulb broke or firecrackers went off. I have never seen fear like that. More to the immediate point, I have never seen fear like that in America over terrorism, not after 9/11, not after Boston, not after San Bernardino. I don't think it exists. I mean, stereotype incoming here but, Americans don't run. So it is my impression anyway that Obama did not "fail to fully appreciate the fear" of Americans over Paris, Paris did not produce a different kind of, or greater, "fear" among Americans, what disturbed Americans so much about Paris was the panicked response of the French people. My thoughts anyway. Even after San Bernardino you didn't see Americans running. Obama has related those statistics about terrorism casualties vis a vis handgun and car crash casualties to the American people directly, not just with advisors. I don't think that's an apposite point. Obviously, the difference is that handguns, cars, falls in bathtubs, etc. do not involve (1) premeditated (2) attacks (3) by an identifiable enemy (4) on America itself. Obama doesn't see that, he sees only the statistics. That's a problem.]
The frustration among Obama’s advisers spills over into the Pentagon and the State Department. John Kerry, for one, seems more alarmed about isis than the president does. Recently, when I asked the secretary of state a general question—is the Middle East still important to the U.S.?—he answered by talking exclusively about isis. “This is a threat to everybody in the world,” he said...
When I noted to Kerry that the president’s rhetoric doesn’t match his, he said, “President Obama sees all of this, but he doesn’t gin it up into this kind of—he thinks we are on track. He has escalated his efforts. But he’s not trying to create hysteria … I think the president is always inclined to try to keep things on an appropriate equilibrium. I respect that.”
Obama modulates his discussion of terrorism for several reasons: He is, by nature, Spockian. And he believes that a misplaced word, or a frightened look, or an ill-considered hyperbolic claim, could tip the country into panic. The sort of panic he worries about most is the type that would manifest itself in anti-Muslim xenophobia or in a challenge to American openness and to the constitutional order...
his advisers are fighting a constant rearguard action to keep Obama from placing terrorism in what he considers its “proper” perspective, out of concern that he will seem insensitive to the fears of the American people.
The frustration among Obama’s advisers spills over into the Pentagon and the State Department. John Kerry, for one, seems more alarmed about isis than the president does. Recently, when I asked the secretary of state a general question—is the Middle East still important to the U.S.?—he answered by talking exclusively about isis. “This is a threat to everybody in the world,” he said...
When I noted to Kerry that the president’s rhetoric doesn’t match his, he said, “President Obama sees all of this, but he doesn’t gin it up into this kind of—he thinks we are on track. He has escalated his efforts. But he’s not trying to create hysteria … I think the president is always inclined to try to keep things on an appropriate equilibrium. I respect that.”
Obama modulates his discussion of terrorism for several reasons: He is, by nature, Spockian. And he believes that a misplaced word, or a frightened look, or an ill-considered hyperbolic claim, could tip the country into panic. The sort of panic he worries about most is the type that would manifest itself in anti-Muslim xenophobia or in a challenge to American openness and to the constitutional order...
[I'm going to take Obama through Goldberg literally here: if that is what Obama "worries about most" then that's a problem. To state the obvious, if Obama prevented the American Muslim action he wouldn't have to worry about the American non-Muslim reaction. He's worried about the constitution: this from the guy who inherited and continued NSA spying which hollowed out the constitution. No.]
