Who will keep us safe? | WORLD
Logo
Sound journalism, grounded in facts and Biblical truth | Donate

Who will keep us safe?


You have {{ remainingArticles }} free {{ counterWords }} remaining. You've read all of your free articles.

Full access isn’t far.

We can’t release more of our sound journalism without a subscription, but we can make it easy for you to come aboard.

Get started for as low as $3.99 per month.

Current WORLD subscribers can log in to access content. Just go to "SIGN IN" at the top right.

LET'S GO

Already a member? Sign in.

I like safety. Safety is a good thing, especially for children. Children need to feel safe in their homes and schools and neighborhoods in order to develop confidence. On a hierarchy of needs, safety should rank in the top three. In Maslov’s scheme, it’s second only to basic requirements like food and shelter.

I mention this because safety was a major theme of last week’s Republican presidential debate. How major? The words “safe,” “unsafe,” and “safety” were uttered 54 times. The moderators were responsible for a few of those, but the vast majority came from the candidates. In their opening statements, Rand Paul used the word or its variants once, likewise Jeb Bush and Ben Carson. Ted Cruz mentioned it twice, and Chris Christie a whopping five times. In closing statements, Carly Fiorina and Jeb Bush hit it twice, Marco Rubio once.

The emphasis on safety was perfectly understandable, especially in the wake of two recent blood-spattered events in Paris and in San Bernardino. But sometime in the middle of the long evening the words began to wear on me. Safety, though a positive and desirable quality, is not a positive force. It is, rather, a negative—defined not by what it is but by what it lacks. Safety is the absence of danger. But danger is everywhere: crooks and murderers in the neighborhood, floodwaters and tornadoes in nature, zealots and tyrants spreading poison throughout the world. Of course, all the presidential candidates know that, and, of course, they recognize that you can’t fight danger with “safety.” I just wish they’d made more of a point of it.

“I’ll keep you safe” is an impossible promise. What our leaders should promise instead is vigilance, preparedness, resourcefulness, and a clear perception of where danger lies. Only one GOP candidate never mentioned the S-word, and that was Donald Trump. “Look,” he said, “we need a toughness. We need strength. We don’t have it.” I’m not a Trump supporter, but in his rough, brash way he put his finger on it: The only way to national security is through toughness and strength.

Though not an active force, safety can only be achieved by active means. Parents must work to maintain a stable marriage and home life so their children feel secure. Neighbors must be their brothers’ keepers, watching out for one another. Free nations must recognize that global unity will never happen, and accordingly keep their powder dry for the conflicts that certainly will happen.

And Americans should stop expecting their leaders to keep them safe. That’s a responsibility we all share, and danger is something we will all face from time to time. Christians should be the first to recognize it, and the first to show confidence and reliability. King David, no stranger to upheaval and stress, demonstrates the attitude in Psalm 4, spoken from a time of anxiety:

“Lift up the light of your face upon us, O LORD! … In peace I will both lie down and sleep; for you alone, O LORD, make me dwell in safety.”


Janie B. Cheaney

Janie is a senior writer who contributes commentary to WORLD and oversees WORLD’s annual Children’s Books of the Year awards. She also writes novels for young adults and authored the Wordsmith creative writing curriculum. Janie resides in rural Missouri.

COMMENT BELOW

Please wait while we load the latest comments...

Comments