London and other dangerous places

The scariest thing about the London bombings may be the statement by one British authority on terrorism that Al-Quaeda isn't an organization any more, it's an ideology. Any group of people that wants to call itself an Al-Quaeda cell and engage in terrorism can do it, he says. Which actually makes Al-Quaeda sound more like a franchise than an ideology. On the other hand, the prospect of a major terrorist operation getting bogged down in intellectual property disputes over who can use the Al-Quaeda logo and name is kind of appetizing. Couldn't happen to a nicer bunch of people.

In the meantime, the USA PATRIOT Act is still up for renewal in Congress, and Bush is threatening to veto any attempt to diminish its scope and power. And at the same time, they're still talking about the "Real I.D. Act." That one raises a couple of questions. On one hand, the orthodox civil libertarians are unalterably opposed to a single national identity document, because it just sounds too much like the internal passports of the Soviet Union and the infamous pass documents of apartheid South Africa. On the other hand, in order to achieve the same result, the federal government is now trying to reshape the way the states issue driver's licenses.

At this point, I think we might actually be better off with a single national identity document. In the first place, nobody could refuse to accept it. (Racial minorities are especially familiar with being barred from various places and activities requiring "good I.D." because whatever document they presented wasn't "good enough" -- obviously racism was the real reason, but as long as the proprietor had the right to refuse to accept the validity of somebody's I.D., he could get away with it.) In the second place, that might leave the states free to go back to regulating driver's licenses for their original purpose--insuring that the people driving on our roads are competent to do so, regardless of their immigration status. In the third place, people who for whatever reason don't drive are entitled not to be treated as second-class citizens with second-class I.D.s. The use of the driver's license as the primary and preferred identity document discriminates against people who are too old, too young, too disabled, or too poor to drive.

Yes, I know ours is not the first society to build an entire social and political system on a means of transportation. Since the first use of horses for military purposes (in classical Rome, I think), owning a horse was the measure of nobility and citizenship, pretty much until the invention and widespread use of the automobile. Most of the European words that mean "noble" are connected with the horse (cavalier, chevalier, caballero, ritter, chivalry, and so on.) That doesn't make it a good idea.

Indeed, as the population of most industrial countries ages, the use of the automobile becomes more and more problematic. Most of us think it's okay to keep children from driving, and we don't really worry much about poor people and people with disabilities--they'll manage somehow, and if they don't, who cares? But all of us are getting older, and eventually we will get too old to drive safely. Just as getting a driver's license marks the passage from childhood into adulthood, losing it marks the passage from adulthood into redundant and dependent old age. Unless we either dramatically improve the public transportation system or invent a "smart car" that doesn't need a physically competent driver, we're all headed for trouble.

So in the meantime, can't we at least invent a form of identity document that doesn't require the ability to drive a car? And, at least as important, can't we go back to using the driver's license for its original and vital purpose--keeping our roads safe?