Like millions of young people during the 1960s, I loudly protested the war in Vietnam and other perceived injustices. Back then, we spent a lot of time criticizing “The System” or “The Establishment” -- the American power structure and everything we believed was wrong with it. At eighteen or nineteen, we were certain there had to be faster, cleaner solutions to complex political or social problems, compared to those the government was offering. My generation wasn’t much interested in hearing about the intelligence or strength behind the design of our Republic -- we wanted peace now! Sometimes, we talked about tearing down the establishment and starting over. Forty years later, all this is quite ironic, as many of us now hope to be able to preserve the system we once viewed so harshly.
During the past ten to fifteen years, our nation’s legal system, voting rights, protections granted us under the U.S. Constitution, and the checks and balances built into our democracy have all come under assault. Talk show hosts from coast to coast have decided that due process and jurors’ verdicts are far less important than their opinions; the talking heads don’t want to be confused by conflicting testimony, cross-examination or the presentation of evidence. Since the autumn of 2000, countless votes have been lost through ballot problems or electronic malfunctions in both state and national elections, negating the will of the American people. Criminal suspects have been held in prison without the chance to confront their accusers -- in violation of the foundation of the law in the United States. Some of our leaders have behaved as if they answer to no one but themselves or their vague and violent definition of God.
The country’s Founding Fathers wove together our three branches of government so that no single person or group could become too powerful, and the passions of the mob would not rule in court or at the polls. Balance and restraint were at the heart of the system they devised. It was better to use too little force than too much, because the latter could unleash unforeseen and disastrous consequences.
All these things were on my mind in the winter of 2006, when I began looking for a new subject to explore. In recent years, I’d written two books about serial killers and was eager to do something else. Although I didn’t realize it at the time, I was searching for something with more heart, mostly because of what was happening to my country. When America attacked Iraq in March 2003, it seemed unlikely that the war would be brief or tidy or fulfill any of the expectations of those who started it. As the years went by, from 2003 to 2006, with the body count piling up on every side, this became disturbingly obvious. In April 2007, the U.S. State Department reported that international terrorism was significantly on the rise, with 14,000 attacks the previous year. Car bombings were up and child casualties had increased by 80% from the prior twelve months. The stated goal of the administration of George W. Bush -- to reduce terrorist acts worldwide -- not only wasn’t effective, but appeared to be fostering more violence.
In subtle ways, it was becoming harder to be an American citizen and harder still to feel good about the recent actions of our federal government. It wasn’t just that the war in Iraq wasn’t ending terror, but our political system wasn’t working, either. The brakes designed to uncover corruption or stop runaway power weren’t being applied by Congress, but denied or ignored.
When launching the nation’s War on Terror in the fall of 2001, President Bush did something no politician had ever done before. He told the populace that we could support his war effort by driving to the mall and going shopping. I didn’t really like going to malls or shopping that much, and I knew I wanted to go somewhere else, but it took me a while to figure out where.