National Security as a Stamp of Approval

I agree with Wolfers' argument in that "national security" (or "national interest") is an easily applied ideal used to support legislation or policy that fits its malleable framework. Although, while its true that almost anything can be called a "security issue", if citizens have political power in a nation it is unlikely for these issues to be stretched as far. For example, if a politician of some sort is attempting to push healthy lunches for public school children as a policy, that's fine. However, if the politician claims that the healthy lunches are vitally urgent and must take precedent over other matters because it will raise the overall health of our population, which will make our country less vulnerable in times of war or bolster the health of those citizens in a draft, then many people will likely see this as a mutation/manipulation of "security policy". My argument is that Wolfers is essentially right, especially in regard to privacy/surveillance and allocation of resources, but there are limits to the flexibility of the notion of national security.

The Patriot Act is perhaps an example of national security being bent as a concept to rationalize policy. For better or for worse, this act partially sacrificed some privacy/liberties of American citizens in the name of national security in a post-9/11 world. Similar surveillance/privacy measures have been on the forefront of debate in our current time because of the affect on advancement in technology on the eternal, yet fragile power balance between people and their government. In countries that place less value on human rights or civil liberties, like China, the notion of "national security" can be stretched a lot farther with significantly fewer consequences. In my mind, there is a clear potential opening for some sort of dystopian or Orwellian state. It would be best to find some sort of narrower definition or limit to the national security idea, but what exactly that line would be is the trickiest part.

Another issue that supports Wollers arguments is military spending. Obviously, its something we need, but based on one's political views the need to ensure "national security" could mean vastly different budgets. My argument in regard to this is simply: of course! The phrase is subjective at the very core because people's opinions on it are so vastly different. This extends to other "glittering generalities" such as liberty, justice, privacy, equality, etc. These words may all have technical definitions, but they are not defined, if that makes sense. When it comes to structuring policy around these ideals, there is a potential of these words to be applied to a wide and flexible range of issues and solutions. While this could pose problems, is it really avoidable?

This all stems back to the Renaissance idea of the social contract. If "national security" and other generalities are used as a "Stamp of Approval" for policy to a dangerous extent, it is vital for the citizens to check this power imbalance (in a democracy) and watchfully ensure that these malleable terms aren't perverted or mutated into what they were never intended to represent.