{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02430939226519337, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.205479452054795, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Threat and Anxiety in US Foreign Policy

Four decades ago, Karl Deutsch devised what he called ‘Parkinson's Law for national security’: A nation's feeling of insecurity expands directly with its power. This certainly seems to apply to the United States, which is simultaneously the strongest country in the history of the world and the most insecure of today's great powers. The threats it has recently identified in the international system, from Iraq to Hugo Chávez to terrorism, are minor compared to what most states have had to confront throughout history. As states grow in power they usually also become more materially secure; why, then, do they often seem to worry more, often about trivial matters? This essay explores the political psychology of unipolarity. Pathologies arise when irrational forces drive policymaking; presumably better policy results from more rational cost-benefit analyses.