<a href="https://reason.com/2025/08/04/how-national-security-came-unmoored-from-americans-actual-security/" target="_blank">View original image source</a>.
National security has been a cornerstone of American rhetoric for decades, but as Andrew Preston points out in his book, Total Defense: The New Deal and the Invention of National Security, it might not mean what you think it does. Originally, our safety was about protecting our borders, but things took a curious turn with the New Deal and World War I. Suddenly, the folks in charge decided we needed to worry about global issues instead. It’s like being told your home is safe, but they hand you a passport and tell you to watch out for trouble everywhere else.
Preston argues that this strategic shift was primarily driven by an elite few who pushed the nation to see its interests as worldwide rather than just at home. So, while we’re all busy worrying about the potential for invasion, it appears our leaders might be more concerned about their own agendas. It’s like the classic case of a magician holding your attention while the real trick happens right behind you.
Even though earlier fears about security were mostly on the domestic front, the globe-trotting narrative became the new normal with figures like Franklin Delano Roosevelt at the helm. He managed to wrap economic concerns and war efforts into a grand narrative of national security that, lo and behold, benefited the few at the top. The irony here is thick—while we thought we were fighting for our safety, it turns out we were being led down a path that benefited an elite ideology.
So, what do you think about this shift? Is national security just a veil for deeper agendas, or is it necessary to think on a global scale? Let’s get the conversation rolling!
About the Author
To get daily local headlines delivered to your inbox each morning, sign up for newsletter!
