Is security just a political game?

For the readings for class this afternoon, I actually surprised myself. You're probably thinking that I'm surprised because I actually did the reading before class. No actually I do that every week but this week I actually understood what the heck the authors were arguing. And I ended up agreeing with Thrall (shh don't tell my Uncle Teddy K he'd try to disown me). I've always thought of the minority as the victim, who couldn't stop all of the injustices that the party in power was making. But Thrall gives us another way of looking at it- that society is merely polarized, and that issues are framed to appeal to virtues, even if that means that we're not being told the truth. It's the media's job to be the watch dog to the public sector, but sometimes they talk more about morals and virtues of the matter than they do about trying to seek out the truth. Therefore, according to this argument, what you believe is based on your upbringing and morals, not what is presented as true. That's why there are so many news channels- they're all covering the same stories, but they just take it from a different angle.
The Krebs and Lobasz article is more of what I was expecting myself to buy into- the Democrats had to shut up because the Republicans were making an argument that wasn't easy to go against. But when I thought about it some more, I considered that everyone, especially on capital hill, is able to frame information and opinions so that other people agree with them. And the Democrats are perfectly able to play that same game.
Society is polarized, but it's not because of where we're from or what's right- it's because of our virtues. Life is what you make it, and the War in Iraq was a case in which opposition didn't do enough early enough to stop this fight.