I was thinking the other day about the question that was posed in the debates, about a terrorist WMD attack on two American cities, and how each of the candidates might respond if president. I wasn't completely satisfied with any response I heard, though all of them came fairly close to what I expected to hear.
But it got me thinking: what SHOULD the response of a Progressive president be to such a horrific event, and in what significant ways would it differ from, say, a conservative or neo-conservative response? How could a progressive approach safeguard the American public from further attack and determine an appropriate, forceful response, and at the same time avoid eroding civil liberties in the name of safety?
I regard the probability of such an event as being pretty low(single digit percentages over the next 20-30 years), but nonetheless, it seems like a good way to identify and/or develop how exactly a progressive approach to national security policy would be different from what has gone before.
Read More