The home front.(national security politicised)

THE Democrats, and not a few allied pundits, claim that the Republicans are preparing to campaign based on fear. They say that as though it were a bad thing. It isn't. Fear is nature's way of spurring us to take action to prevent harm. It is certainly true that excessive fear can lead to rash action, or paralysis. But insufficient fear can lead us to complacency. If we can be scared out of our wits, we can be scared into them as well. We think that much of the political class is not fearful enough about the consequences of losing Iraq, of letting Iran have nuclear weapons, and of slackening in various domestic-security measures. Republicans who agree are right to warn Americans about the danger of those things, and of electing politicians who downplay those dangers or have no serious intent to reduce them.

That means that national security ought to be "politicized." In the discourse of the last four years, politicization of the war is supposedly something only Republicans do. When Democrats object to administration policies, they are not said to be playing politics with terrorism. Nor should they be simply for disagreeing. How to conduct the War on Terror, and whether to regard it as a war at all, are the most important political issues currently demanding a political resolution. Well-meaning people in our country have serious disagreements about the answer to those questions. Their differences are reflected in our political life, and especially in the divisions between the parties. We are a representative democracy. So of course those differences should be submitted to the people to decide, by deciding for whom to vote. To "politicize" the war is to democratize it.

Among the obstacles Republicans face is not just a liberal chorus claiming that such ...