46 It is a misapprehension that liberalism is a source of state weakness because it is centrally concerned with individual liberty. The core prin- ciples of liberalism . . . provide not only a theory of freedom, equality, and the public good, but also a discipline of power—the means of cre- ating power as well as controlling it. . . . Liberal constitutions serve to protect the state itself from capricious, impulsive, or overreaching deci- sions . . . constitutional liberalism imposes a further discipline by dividing power within the state and society, and requiring public disclosure and discussion of state decisions. —Paul Starr, “War and Liberalism” 1 Introduction It is often said that security is the dominant logic of our time, and even a cursory glance at today’s political landscape gives credence to the claim. Security seems to pervade modern politics, whether in the high politics of drones, satellites, and national diplomacy, the myriad structures of global governance with their complex modes and models of risk and catastro- phe, or the order of the household, where nanny-cams now watch over the domains of domesticity. The political concerns raised by this pervasive- ness are legion, but among the most signiicant are its implications for liberalism. Security is necessary for the protection of liberalism, but risks the erosion or destruction of the very values and institutions that it claims 1. Paul Starr, “War and Liberalism: Why Power is Not the Enemy of Freedom,” The New Republic, March 5, 2007, pp. 21–24. Vibeke Schou Tjalve and Michael C. Williams Rethinking the Logic of Security: Liberal Realism and the Recovery of American Political Thought Telos 170 (Spring 2015): 46–66. doi:10.3817/0315170046 www.telospress.com