Public Fear, Irrationality, and Counterterrorism Policy
This paper analyzes the Cato Institute whitepaper by Muller and Stewart (2018) on public opinion and counterterrorism policy in the United States. It examines how public fear of terrorism — particularly following the September 11 attacks — has influenced policy decisions, government expenditures, and civil liberties. The paper explores the tension between justified and unjustified fears, the psychological drivers of irrational risk perception, and the potential for politicians to exploit public anxiety for self-serving purposes. It also considers the broader community impact of terrorism, including economic costs, social trust, and the challenge of balancing security with equitable treatment of all citizens.
- Overview of Public Fear and Counterterrorism Policy: Post-9/11 public fear and its policy implications
- Justified vs. Unjustified Fears and Political Exploitation: Politicians capitalizing on terrorism fears for gain
- Economic Consequences of Terrorism: Financial costs of terrorism on industries and society
- Root Causes of Irrationality in Public Fear of Terrorism: Psychology of uncontrollable threats and risk perception
- Importance of Balanced Counterterrorism Policy: Need for public education over fear exploitation
- Community Impact of Terrorism: Social, economic, and civil liberties costs of terrorism
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- Engages critically with its primary source (the Cato Institute whitepaper), questioning several of the authors' claims rather than simply summarizing them — this demonstrates analytical independence.
- Connects psychological theory (Ariely's predictable irrationality) to real-world policy behavior, grounding the argument in interdisciplinary reasoning.
- Raises ethically important distinctions — such as the difference between foreign and domestic terrorism threats — that add nuance to the policy discussion.
Key academic technique demonstrated
The paper models source-critical analysis: it reads and summarizes a policy document while actively interrogating its assumptions. Rather than treating the whitepaper as authoritative, the student identifies potentially self-serving or oversimplified claims (e.g., that public fear is "bottom-up" and not manufactured by politicians) and offers counterarguments. This is a strong example of evaluative engagement with secondary sources.
Structure breakdown
The paper opens with a contextual introduction drawn from the Cato whitepaper, then moves through a series of thematically organized sections: the nature of public fear and its policy implications, the problem of justified vs. unjustified fears, economic consequences, the psychology of irrational risk perception, policy responsibilities, and community impact. The argument builds progressively from description toward critique, ending with a normative call for judicious policy expenditure.
Overview of Public Fear and Counterterrorism Policy
As detailed in the whitepaper Public Opinion and Counterterrorism Policy (Muller & Stewart, 2018) published by the Cato Institute, winning the hearts and minds of the public in the war on terror is a critical component of ensuring the safety of a nation. According to the authors, although time has traditionally eroded heightened alertness about terrorism in the United States once a significant terrorist incident has passed, this pattern did not hold to the same degree following the events of 2001 — though concerns are somewhat less acute today. Part of this persistence is due to the unexpected nature of the attacks, the magnitude of the crime, and a significant public fear about a worldwide terrorist network that poses an ongoing threat to United States citizens, even on American soil.
Public fears of terrorism do not necessarily need to be viewed in a negative light from the perspective of policymakers. Given the extremity of these fears, and the fact that they cannot — and indeed should not — be dismissed with a simple assurance that there is nothing to worry about, the authors argue that counterterrorism experts are "free to do their job right: they can expend money responsibly in a manner that best saves lives rather than in one that seeks to reduce unjustified, and perhaps unfathomable, fears" (Muller & Stewart, 2018, p. 1). Based on polling data, the authors characterize public sentiment as follows: "concerns about terrorism soared at the time of the 9/11 attacks, dropped to lower levels in subsequent months, but then failed to decline much further in the years thereafter" (Muller & Stewart, 2018, p. 4). Americans still perceive the nation as less safe than they did before the attacks, though concerns about an imminent attack have waxed and waned depending on the apparent threat posed by specific organizations — such as the rise of ISIS in 2013–2014.
Justified vs. Unjustified Fears and Political Exploitation
This framing raises a problematic question: are the public's fears justified or unjustified? For example, it may be justified to worry that extensive weaponry is legally available for public purchase in the United States, or that foreign visa screening is insufficient. However, it is not justified to suspect every individual of Arabic ancestry or of the Muslim faith. At the same time, it is necessary to commit significant public expenditures to fighting terrorism, and waging a sustained war on terror requires public support — financial, rhetorical, and moral. The attacks of 9/11 ultimately resulted in the founding of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).
The unique aspect of the current war on terror, the authors claim, is that it is bottom-up in nature — driven by the public's own fears rather than manufactured in a McCarthyism-like scenario of politicians exploiting the moment for political gain. This is, however, a questionable claim. There is clearly a threat to the United States posed by non-state actors such as terror networks, though the extent to which foreign governments support such networks remains debatable. But acknowledging a real threat does not mean politicians cannot — or do not — capitalize upon public fears for self-interested purposes. Notably, the authors observe that the public seems far less willing to sacrifice civil liberties for the sake of security than it was in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, which they identify as a significant development.
It is also possible for politicians to exploit public fears in ways that serve their own agendas. For example, agitating against foreign-sounding terrorist organizations may be more politically popular than giving equal attention to the threat posed by nativist right-wing or left-wing domestic terrorist groups. The public may not be equally willing to recognize the dangers posed by such groups, and it may suit the interests of certain politicians to downplay the true nature and extent of those threats.
Root Causes of Irrationality in Public Fear of Terrorism
The report highlights the complex interplay between real-world events and human psychology. Public psychology is not entirely irrational — the heightened concern following 9/11 was understandable, and the partial retraction of that concern reflects the fact that an equally severe attack did not materialize in subsequent months. On the other hand, there is demonstrable irrationality in the public's fear of terrorism relative to other threats, such as gun violence. As the authors note, "the chances of winning the lottery or of dying from terrorism may be microscopic, but for monumental events that are, or seem, random, one can conclude that one's chances are just as good or bad as those of anyone else" (Muller & Stewart, 2018, p. 16).
The uncontrollable and random nature of terrorism makes it particularly frightening to the public, as does the fact that managing the terrorist threat appears to rest in the hands of politicians rather than individuals themselves — unlike, say, the choice to quit smoking or avoid unhealthy foods. This phenomenon of predictable irrationality in the face of personally uncontrollable threats may result in a sustained public willingness to support government efforts and expenditures to combat terrorism over the long term (Ariely, 2010).
References
Ariely, D. (2010). Predictably irrational. New York, NY: Harper Perennial.
DHS. (2019). Official website. Retrieved from https://www.dhs.gov/
Muller, J., & Stewart, M. (2018). Public opinion and counterterrorism policy. Cato Institute.
Create your account
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.