SPEECHES AND SYMBOLISM DO LITTLE TO SOLVE OUR PROBLEMS

War on two fronts is not calculated to be an easy business, but the
suspicion is growing that following hard-core Republican doctrine and
making speeches to schoolchildren isn't coming to grips with the deadly
problems of terrorism and economic decline that confront the country.

The Republican answer to the gathering economic storm has been more than
$100 billion in handouts to the big airlines and to such needy corporations
as IBM ($1.4 billion), General Motors ($800 million) and General Electric
($670 million,) while offering little to displaced workers beyond pious
exhortations to go on a spending spree to stimulate the economy. It may
come as a rude shock to the fat-cat philosophers of Bush & Co., but people
who are looking for jobs are not simultaneously shopping for new
refrigerators. I'm certainly not in the mood to buy a new car right now.

Nor has the administration's slow start on the anthrax threat inspired
great confidence, and the spectacle of members of the House running for the
hills was an embarrassment that is sure to give fresh ammunition to the
religious nuts who wish us ill.

And excuse me, I know former Pennsylvania governor Tom Ridge, our new czar
of domestic security, is a good man, but I thought our gold-plated defense
establishment, the FBI and the CIA and all the other costly security
agencies we support had a handle on keeping us safe. Is Czar Ridge going to
sack any high-level incompetents, or even knock a few suety bureaucratic
heads? We'll see, but to date he seems to be mostly into the exhortation
business, just like his boss. Let us fervently hope that Ridge is not the
dismal failure that a succession of drug-war czars have proved to be.

The war against terrorism is not going to be won by symbolism and catchy
phrases, but we're sure as heck getting them. The Office of Homeland
Security sounds like something out of "The Wizard of Oz." Congress was not
to be outdone. Its collective spine stiffened by withering criticism of the
House's retreat, Congress returned in time to pass and send to the
president a misbegotten paste-up of cop-thought called the Uniting and
Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept
and Obstruct Terrorism bill. Recognizing that most people couldn't get out
that mouthful, Congress gave it an acronym: It's to be known as the USA
Patriot Act.

Critics say it gives law enforcement far more investigative and detention
powers than it needs, at a substantial cost to civil liberties,
particularly those of immigrants. For example, it broadens the abilities of
government agencies to run secret searches in both anti-terrorism and
routine criminal investigations, allowing them to enter homes without
presenting a search warrant. It grants the FBI broader access to financial
and health records of individuals without having to show evidence of a
crime or obtaining a court order. It makes paying membership dues to a
political organization an offense that can be punished by deportation. It
allows searches of personal financial records without notice.

The law reeks of hard-core law-enforcement-at-any-cost mentality, the same
mind-set that brought us the war on drugs, which also seriously undermined
civil liberties. But again, as with the war on drugs, politicians go with
the flow out of fear that they will be pilloried for being "soft" on drug
offenders or, now even worse, "soft" on terrorists. Only one senator, Russ
Feingold (D-Wis.) voted against it. He voiced the fears that many civil
libertarians voiced in the days immediately after the Sept. 11 attack,
namely, that we would respond in ways that subvert civil liberties just as
we did with the suspension of habeas corpus during the Civil War and the
internment of Japanese Americans after Pearl Harbor.

In the House, members showed a greater willingness to dissent, with 62
Democrats, including the ranking Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee,
and three Republicans voting against the bill, as did Vermont independent
Bernie Sanders.

The law is aimed at domestic as well as foreign terrorism, which means law
enforcement will have more tools to go after abortion clinic terrorists who
have clearly been emboldened by the anthrax letters.

Eleanor Smeal, head of the Feminist Majority Foundation, which has a
long-running clinic protection project, said that more than 250 clinics
have received letters containing powdery substances and anthrax threats in
the past weeks. Many have been signed the "Army of God." This is a
clandestine organization that has claimed credit for numerous violent
incidents involving abortion clinics and abortion providers.

The letters have been turned over to the FBI, and so far none have tested
positive for anthrax spores. Smeal worries that domestic terrorists who
have targeted abortion clinics will get anthrax spores now that they know
the terror tool is doable.

The public is getting a taste of the threats that abortion clinics have
been living with for years. It's not a pleasant way to live. I don't like
having to worry when I open up my mail. I don't like the prospect of having
to live with the kind of security that is installed at abortion clinics.
But at least terrorist attacks are now being taken seriously.

Smeal is right when she says it is not normal to live with threats of
anthrax in the mail or terrorists storming health clinics. We should not
have to live with such threats. Congress and the administration are taking
steps to address serious problems, and the public has been surprisingly
united and patient. But a legitimate question to be asked now is: Are
Congress and the administration doing everything possible to shore up our
democracy?