I have to add my voice to the chorus of those who don’t like the word “homeland” in homeland defense. I’m, well, a little creeped out by it, as it reminds me of fatherland and motherland, the preferred formulations of fascists and communists. A quick diversion – I believe it was Jude Wanniski who originally described the Democrats as the mommy party and the Republicans as the daddy party based upon the characteristics of mothers and fathers; does the use of father vs. mother with land indicate if the political group is a mommy group or a daddy group? End of diversion. But I think, creepiness aside, that it doesn’t work too well for Americans because either we are recent enough Americans to still consider our “homeland” to be another country where our ancestors (or ourselves) were from, or we’ve been here so long we’ve forgotten all about the concept of homeland. America has always defined itself by ideas and opportunity, and not so much by territory, which isn’t surprising given how often our geography has changed since the original thirteen colonies.
As long as I’m on the subject, let me just say that no matter what you call it, the real question is will a reorganization help or hurt efforts at homeland (ugh!) defense, and I for one don’t think it will help. The turf battles will overwhelm any reform efforts, and we’ll still be stuck with an enormous government bureaucracy. Better to find ten tigers to run the disparate parts than to lump it all together under Tom Ridge.
