Following the September 11, 2001 attacks on the United States’ World Trade Center in New York City, New York, the American government enacted several laws to deter any future threat of terrorism. One of the more widely debated laws was named the USA Patriot Act, regularly called the Patriot Act. The legislation pursued several different outlets to increase national security and limit any possible threat of terrorism. Although the law appeared to be enacted from positive intentions, it certainly did not come without criticism. The law experienced a significant amount of backlash regarding the apparent expansion of powers of government. Many Americans viewed this law as a threat to their privacy and individual liberty. It raised many questions regarding the affect of a high-surveillance government on individual privacy and overall democracy. The USA Patriot Act became one of the most controversial pieces of legislation in modern US history. Although the effects of the law are widely debated and often accused of causing slight trends towards democratic erosion, hindsight proves that the Patriot Act did not lead to democratic backsliding within the United States.
One of the more fascinating aspects of the development of the Patriot Act is the history of its formulation. Although the law was enacted following deadly terrorist attacks that scarred Americans forever, it also came at a time following widespread globalization and technological development. Not only did the United States’ government contain a massive obligation to protect its citizens from the threat of terrorism, it also felt a requirement to address the potential for new forms of crimes to be introduced through globalization and the creation of the internet. Given the rapid changes throughout the culture, large numbers of leaders in both of the dominant parties of the U.S. government supported enacting the legislating. In October of 2001, the bill passed in the House of Representatives by a vote of 357-66, and on the following day it passed in the Senate by a vote of 98-1. The USA Patriot Act became law and addressed new issues in a way that Americans had never seen before.
The USA Patriot Act affected the government’s surveillance in five specific ways. Three of these changes addressed the government’s relationship to private citizens and two of the changes addressed alterations within the government itself. It provided the federal government with the ability to review citizen’s records contained by private companies, allowed the government to tap domestic and international phone calls, allowed for detainment without trial, sped up communication between federal agencies, and expanded the criteria by which the government would determine what constitutes threats of terrorism. Of these five provisions created through the law, the first three receive the most criticism.
Many of the criticisms surrounding the Patriot Act revolve around the first three provisions that address the government’s relationship to its citizens. Although the purposes of the law appear to be completely justified, many Americans felt as if the law affected the democracy. This was arguably the first law in the country’s history that gave the government direct access to its citizen’s conversations, business transactions, and everyday dealings. On top of this, many critics also argued that allowing detainment without trial removed the citizen’s ability to defend oneself before punishment in the face of the government. On the surface, such a control-grab from a state appears to trend towards an authoritarian direction. It seemed to effectively grant the government access into the everyday lives of its citizens. However, did such a controversial act really lead to the beginning of a democratic erosion process in the United States?
There are many different trends to be analyzed that point to the erosion of a democracy. The control over media, criminalization of political opponents, and increased weaponized communication are all early indicators of democratic erosion. Another indicator of the deterioration of a democracy is the decreased privacy of individual citizens. When a government begins to infringe itself into the speech, decisions, and actions of citizens, their personal voice and opinions are denigrated by the overreach of the government. However, it is also important to evaluate the role of the government and the purpose behind its actions. Democratic erosion requires a government to step outside of its role in order to denigrate the voice of the people. Understanding the obligations of a government provide context for reviewing whether or not the state’s actions are leading to the backsliding of a democracy.
Although several provisions of the act contain similarities to other potentially harmful acts within deteriorating democracies, the role and purpose of a federal government cannot go overlooked. The United States Constitution clearly articulates that one of the primary roles of the federal government is to provide national security, national defense, and to protect the country against enemies. In an increasingly globalized society that is filled with technological advancement, providing national security looks different than in previous generations. Different generational norms require different and updated forms of governance. As is now evident, the policies enacted from the Patriot Act in no form affected the democracy of the country.
Although the USA Patriot Act proves that the line between national security and individual privacy is thin, understanding the intent of a government is valuable. Evaluating democratic erosion requires evaluating the purposes for particular policies and understanding the effects of a changing society. The USA Patriot Act did not lead to the erosion of American democracy, but it rather strengthened the security of the citizens from foreign threats as well as provided new ways of governance in globalized age.
The Patriots Act was put into place post-9/11 due to the need for national security and ensuring citizens felt safe after such a horrid terrorist act upon our country. I completely agree with your points. With advancing technology, there seems to be more and more loopholes to spread beliefs that may lead to democratic erosion. Examples of this include the 2016 elections where many political leaders were targeted by outside influences from other countries such as Russia leading to great controversies regarding the security of our country. The Patriots Act is crucial as it ensures that incidents such as these are prevented and caught. By allowing another country to influence the elections shows the vulnerabilities of the country itself and how easily another country can ensure that they are taking control of an aspect of our society. It can be argued by preventing this, the government itself is preventing the democratic erosion of the country itself.
However, I do think that certain aspects must be changed to prevent the government from infringing completely upon the citizens’ privacy. For example, in recent news of the war between Israel and Palestine, government officials have quoted the Patriots Act to prevent citizens from supporting Palestine on social media platforms as they are “encouraging” citizens to create riots and protests against the government and supporting a country that our country is opposing. They demanded that these social media platforms such as Tik Tok remove such content even though it seems that the users themselves are creating such an algorithm for themselves. It brings into question how much control can the government have over our daily lives now that technology is so integrated within it.
Hi Eli,
While this was an interesting article to read, I feel that the argumentation could have been somewhat stronger. Your point that “the policies enacted from the Patriot Act in no form affected the democracy of the country” is argued rhetorically, but I think it would have benefitted from some citations and outside sources to substantiate it, especially considering the opposing viewpoint. Though I can’t provide hyperlinks in this comment, there is a mountain of research pointing to the fact that the Patriot Act encroached upon and outright violated the 4th Amendment rights of American citizens in numerous ways, not the least of which is giving a number of executive agencies complete access to the phone, computer, and banking records of any American citizen without even obtaining a judge’s approval. There’s also substantial evidence that it was used to racially profile Arabs and Muslims in the wake of 9/11. To your point that “democratic erosion requires a government to step outside of its role in order to denigrate the voice of the people,” I think that there’s a great deal of evidence to support the claim that the Patriot Act does just that which your piece does not sufficiently rebut. To make your argument more convicing, I would engage directly with very popular criticisms like those and provide evidence of your own to the contrary.
You make a very compelling case for why the Patriot Act is not harmful for democracy and is only another example of the federal government acting to defend national security. I do believe that a comparison to other cases could be useful to show the consequences of what the Patriot Act allowed for. You make the valid point that the actions of passing the Patriot Act must be examined in order to see how it affected democracy. I do not believe that as of now the Patriot Act is currently being used in ways that undermine democracy in the United States. I do think there is always the possibility of this being done in the future. For instance, an article titled “Stealth Authoritarianism” by Varol detailed how surveillance laws that are passed due to legitimate concerns regarding terrorism are later misused by autocratic leaders to target opposition leaders and groups. This allows for democratic erosion that is legal but still has the same effect as illegal actions to cause a decline in the strength of democracy. I believe that this point could have been better addressed in your article and arguments given for how the Patriot Act avoids this problem or how it could be changed to prevent this from occurring in the future.
Your examination of the USA Patriot Act in the context of democratic erosion is both timely and significant. Your post adeptly outlines the critical balance between national security and individual liberties, a theme central to many democracies grappling with similar issues. One point worth expanding on is the comparative aspect of how other democracies have navigated similar challenges. For example, examining the UK’s Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 or Australia’s Anti-Terrorism Act 2005 could provide a broader perspective. These comparisons can highlight whether the concerns raised in the USA about democratic erosion are unique or part of a broader trend in post-9/11 legislative responses. Furthermore, your analysis could benefit from delving deeper into the long-term effects of the Patriot Act on public trust and civic engagement. There’s an argument to be made that such legislation, while not leading to immediate democratic backsliding, might contribute to a gradual erosion of public confidence in institutions. Exploring whether the Act has had any lasting impact on citizens’ willingness to engage in public discourse or their perception of government transparency could add a nuanced layer to your discussion. I encourage a more fleshed out examination of the Act’s sunset provisions and how their renewals or amendments have reflected changing public and political attitudes towards surveillance and privacy. This aspect can offer insights into the democratic process of revisiting and revising controversial legislation, an important factor in assessing a democracy’s resilience and adaptability. Overall, your post provides a thoughtful basis for discussion, and I look forward to seeing how these additional comparative and long-term perspectives might enrich the conversation around democratic health and legislative responses to national security threats.