In the wake of last month’s terrorist attacks, we’re told that if we don’t keep shopping, flying in airplanes or doing whatever, the terrorists will have won.

The point, of course, is that the terrorists should not be driving our agenda. I agree, and I would add a corollary. We should not allow the tragic events of September 11 to be used to advance causes that have absolutely nothing to do with the goal of punishing the perpetrators of this hideous crime. Particularly, we should not allow September 11 to become an excuse for squelching debate and discouraging criticism of government policies, including those of the U.S. government.

An enthusiasm for squelching debate hangs heavy in the air. If you don’t subscribe to the view that Washington has been a “beacon of liberty for the world,” you’re in danger of being seen as “anti-American.”

In an editorial, The Globe and Mail spoke of “the anti-Americans” whom, according to the Globe, are “always careful to hide their barbs in a cloak of sympathy.” This suggests that anyone who criticizes U.S. policies is not genuinely sympathetic to the victims of the attack. That is an incredible accusation, frothing with moral superiority — as if only supporters of the U.S. government have the capacity to be moved by the horror and human tragedy of the September 11 events — and it seems to be designed to silence critics of Washington by tarring them with the same brush as the perpetrators of terrorism. With this sort of thinking, democratic critics can be lumped into the same pile as people who drive airplanes into buildings. Let’s get a grip here.

George W. Bush, the President, has encouraged this approach by suggesting that people are either “with us” or “with the terrorists.” What exactly does “with us” mean? Does it mean a willingness to bring terrorists to justice, or does it mean something broader, like supporting U.S. interests in general? In the Cold War, the United States demonstrated it was capable of defining threats to its security very broadly, to include perceived threats to its economic interests.

In case it isn’t obvious, it should be pointed out that criticizing the U.S. government is not only permissible in a democracy but is absolutely vital, considering that the United States is the most powerful country on earth, and its actions have a huge impact on every part of the world.

Surely, if we want to understand what’s going on in the world, we must be willing to look a little more critically at U.S. foreign policies than to simply assert that “they hate us because of our freedoms” — an assertion that is about as convincing as the woman who complains “other women hate me because I’m pretty.” It may be satisfying to think so, but it usually doesn’t get at the truth.

I fear that in the new era of political correctness, the ban on criticizing the United States will extend well beyond refusing to examine U.S. policies in the Middle East. Also discouraged will be discussion of broader issues that, I suspect, played no role in the motivation of those who carried out the September 11 events — like Washington’s support in recent years for an aggressive new form of capitalism. (I can imagine how the purveyors of politically correct opinion are already assigning me to the terrorist side of the ledger for criticizing U.S. capitalism.)

I’ll continue anyway, on the principle that if one can’t say this sort of thing we might as well be living in a dictatorship. So here goes: The U.S. corporate elite, with the full support of Washington, has made a bold attempt in the last two decades to redesign the world economy in a way that further enhances its own interests.

It has rejected the Keynesian approach of the early post-war years, under which democratically elected governments imposed limits on the power of private capital, through marketplace regulations and tax and social policies aimed at achieving a more equitable distribution of resources.

Since the early 1980s, the corporate world has succeeded in replacing this approach with a more rigorous, laissez faire-style capitalism, partly by implementing international trade deals — such as the North American Free Trade Agreement — which restrict the power of democratic governments.

This corporate power grab has run into resistance, most vigorously from the so-called anti-globalization movement. This loosely organized international citizens’ movement has proved an annoyance to the established powers; it has set segments of the public questioning the fairness of the global economic system. Not long ago, newspapers — including this one — were full of commentary on this issue.

Now, some portray dissent against the dominance of U.S. corporate power as pro-terrorist, unpatriotic or at least irrelevant. As one headline in the National Post gleefully put it: “Anti-globalization is so yesterday.”

In fact, nothing has changed in terms of the power grab. And presumably the people who disliked this power grab still dislike it. What has changed is the political climate. Some people seem to be hoping that this tragedy will provide the perfect opportunity to nix the anti-globalization movement, that in the current atmosphere people will feel too intimidated to protest or even criticize Washington’s policies, for fear of being seen to be not sufficiently “with us.”

Linda McQuaig

Journalist and best-selling author Linda McQuaig has developed a reputation for challenging the establishment. As a reporter for The Globe and Mail, she won a National Newspaper Award in 1989...