Other reasons for denial

Submitted by Peter Jessen (United States), Feb 8, 2005 at 15:32

Denial can also be for three other reasons, subsets of denial.

"PC" is, of course, a part of it. But part of PC is "cognitive dissonance," the mental conflict between one's belief and the evidence that then needs to be explained away (sects waiting on the hill top for the end of the world and being taken up in rapture -- think Millerites -- coming down from the either discouraged and leaving the sect or "explaining" it and being more zealous (left wing secular Marxists do the same, not to mention the currrent explanations by Democrats as to why they lost in 2004).

"Not on my watch" is a famous bureaucratic watch word: no incident = no mess. We too often blame whoever was in charge, whose ever "watch" it was (Navy term).

Retirement: we blame the messengers, take away law enforcement options, and ensure it all as meaningless once the trial lawyers get ahold of some cases. For too many, the question eventually become, why risk one's job and retirement for a system that will slap you down for actually doing your job?

I'm in Porland, Oregon (remember the Portland 7?) Grade school immigrant Muslim Arabs across the street from the grade school my kids went to openly say, "We're in this country to take it over." The Portland City Council, nonetheless, remains the only one in the country not to cooperate with Homeland Security. The "in denial" about the seriousness of it and the BELIEF that nothing can happen sets the tone as well as the BELIEF that profiling is morally wrong rather than a tool that, as any other, can be used beneficially or misused.

Here is a theory that saddens me and troubles me greatly: what if those in law enforcement, due to the denial of their overseers, and the tendency to treat terrorism as criminal requiring rules of evidence outside the norm, are merely waiting for the other shoe to drop in terms of something very horrible (e.g., suicide bomber or kidnapping within our borders) so that there is then a public demand for action and they can act without endangering their careers/retirement?

That suggests yet another theory: the denial is conscious, a rational act based on career survival. As Europe seems to finally be "getting it," at least a little, it might encourage ours to no longer feel they have to use denial as a rational, sensible career defense.

Another theory: as 80% of Mosques in the USA were build by Wahabbi money, they have marvelous little "sanctuaries" for their cells. If they do anything Americans would demand much in retribution. Given W's response, they may well not try anything until either a D is in the White House or one of their younger one's sense of his need of reward for 72 virgins causes him to act any way. If one or more do, then all responders will be freed to do their job. Then the bureaucratic mind set would give way to the "mission" set.

It may be, for all these reaons, that, as so often in our history, it takes a horrible act to bring us together united against the now seen by all common enemy, which, in this case, is radical Islam.

---

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".