Something that’s really been bothering me lately is the national security frame. This frame has cropped up more and more in political dialogue. Basically, in order to gain attention for your cause du jour, you must frame it as a national security issue.

HIV/AIDS is a national security issue. Climate change is a national security issue. Hunger is a national security issue, and has even been re-franked as “food security”. To be hungry now means to be food insecure. Energy policy is a national security issue. It’s as though an issue isn’t important unless it’s something that affects national security.

I worry about this further militarization of our language and our thoughts. War and violence themes abound in our metaphors. Daily life is a battle, we need a plan, our company’s life is at stake, we must overwhelm and destroy our competition, etc. Now, basic human rights, especially of the social, economic and cultural bent, are being militarized and brought into a national security realm.

Some might not care, being content with the tactical benefit that a favorite issue is at least being discussed. However, these issues had value and importance before they were dragged into a militaristic frame. Why weren’t they discussed before? What insight can we gain from an analysis of that? Tactics matter but strategy is important for the long haul.

Just something to think about.