The national security state and a culture of secrecy are demonstrated in the Dean article “Cultures of Secrecy.” During the Cold War, there was belief that secret communists and foreign threats lived amongst Americans. This is seen in Joe McCarthy’s assertions that the State Department had been infiltrated by communists. Thus, the national security state is protection from foreign and domestic enemies, and the culture of secrecy comes into play with the idea that foreign enemies are in hiding amongst Americans.
The security state is at play in two ways in Fox’s “Home on the Range, in Downwind.” For starters, when the rancheros sued the government, the United States brought reasoning and math to demonstrate that there was no way the radiation caused damage to the animals. This demonstrates an effort to protect their image, and therefore, gives the impression that the government’s actions cannot possibly be harmful. This approach highlights secrecy while showing how the government wants to be perceived as committed to secrecy. However, the rancheros willingness to sue to government also shows a commitment to national security. National security encompasses the protection of foreign and domestic threats. This means that governmental action is also checked through the action of the people.
I find it interesting how aspects of the culture of secrecy are still at play today. Accusations that either liberals or conservatives have secret plans to see through the downfall of America are talking points in contemporary politics. I think after the fall of the Soviet Union, Americans did not have a direct enemy which means now there are off shoots of perceived enemies that are reminiscent of the past. I also think that the national security state still exists. For example, the DOD designates various branches of law enforcement to protect both civilians and the environment. This shows a commitment to protecting Americans and the overall country. While cries of secret communists still occur, the real focus of national security now seems to be a focus on ensuring economic and political stability.
Will Wright 
I agree that while there are still underlying themes of distrust and hatred—specifically targeted at communist regimes—the justification of the expansion of governmental powers has shifted from protecting against physical threats to economic ones. Furthermore, just as the definition of an international “threat” has been exaggerated, the same has been done with what constitutes an economic threat. An example of this can be seen in the United States pulling out of the Paris Climate Agreement. The Administration’s stated purpose of this withdrawal was based on the economic threat that the Agreement posed to Americans. However, it could be argued that the costs of the Agreement are far outweighed by the environmental benefit and thus protections it provides. Had the economic costs of this Agreement not been characterized as a “threat,” the withdrawal from it would have been significantly harder to accomplish.
LikeLike