The lone gunman thing, where someone flips out and shoots up a Navy base, or bombs a government building because of a conspiracy theory, is distinctively American.
A conspiratorial explanation: perhaps the data has been manipulated to downplay terrorist coordination in America. There would be a couple reasons to do that, depending on the audience. For ordinary citizens, a collection of nutcases might be less scary than a dark underworld of coordinated cells. For terrorists and wannabe terrorists, a collection of uncool loners might less glamorous (as you’ve suggested too) than a Team of Subversive Evildoers.
But this doesn’t explain why the same manipulation hasn’t been done for other countries.
It looks to me (admittedly mostly from the outside; I don’t live in the US, though I travel there sometimes) much more as if the government has played up the risk of terrorism by organizations like al Qaida than as if it’s trying to make it seem less threatening. (It seems like there’s less of this under the present government than its predecessor, which cynically would make sense because there’s some evidence that people’s votes tend to shift “rightward” when they are afraid for their lives.)
Yes, you’re right, they do seem to play this up. That’s strong evidence against the conspiratorial explanation I mentioned.
people’s votes tend to shift “rightward” when they are afraid for their lives
Yes, I think this is true. But I seem to remember (but cannot cite) that people also “rally around the flag” and support the leader more—even if the leader is not “right.”
Moreover, the present government still has some additional political incentive to play up the risk of terrorism, especially if the administration can blame it on the previous one. “Al-Qaeda is really scary—man, our predecessors sure did let their guard down.”
A conspiratorial explanation: perhaps the data has been manipulated to downplay terrorist coordination in America. There would be a couple reasons to do that, depending on the audience. For ordinary citizens, a collection of nutcases might be less scary than a dark underworld of coordinated cells. For terrorists and wannabe terrorists, a collection of uncool loners might less glamorous (as you’ve suggested too) than a Team of Subversive Evildoers.
But this doesn’t explain why the same manipulation hasn’t been done for other countries.
It looks to me (admittedly mostly from the outside; I don’t live in the US, though I travel there sometimes) much more as if the government has played up the risk of terrorism by organizations like al Qaida than as if it’s trying to make it seem less threatening. (It seems like there’s less of this under the present government than its predecessor, which cynically would make sense because there’s some evidence that people’s votes tend to shift “rightward” when they are afraid for their lives.)
Yes, you’re right, they do seem to play this up. That’s strong evidence against the conspiratorial explanation I mentioned.
Yes, I think this is true. But I seem to remember (but cannot cite) that people also “rally around the flag” and support the leader more—even if the leader is not “right.”
Moreover, the present government still has some additional political incentive to play up the risk of terrorism, especially if the administration can blame it on the previous one. “Al-Qaeda is really scary—man, our predecessors sure did let their guard down.”
As someone also inside the US, I also get this impression.