Are American anti-terror efforts irrational?

In a piece for The Atlantic under the headline, “The Irrationality of Giving Up This Much Liberty to Fight Terror,” Conor Friedersdorf resurrects the idea that America experiences more deaths from disease and accidents, so deaths from terrorism should not be such a national priority.

Friedersdorf cites deaths from car accidents, diabetes, and guns and compares those numbers to the 3,000 killed on 9/11.

The problem I have with this argument is this: How painful and disturbing would it be to have a loved one die in a car accident compared to a death at the hands of a terrorist in an explosion that incinerated your loved one’s body? In addition, one incident is an accident, the other is a fanatical, irrational act with your loved one targeted for death simply because he/she is an American and non-Muslim.

To me, there is no comparison between those two situations. Accidents happen. Terrorism should not.

Here’s a taste of Freirsdorf’s argument:

“When confronted by far deadlier threats (than terrorism), Americans are much less willing to cede freedom and privacy.

“…Irrational cowardice is getting the better of our polity. Terrorism isn't something we're ceding liberty to fight because the threat is especially dire compared to other dangers of the modern world. All sorts of things kill us in far greater numbers. Rather, like airplane crashes and shark attacks, acts of terror are scarier than most causes of death. The seeming contradictions in how we treat different threats suggest that we aren't trading civil liberties for security, but a sense of security. We aren't empowering the national-security state so that we're safer, but so we feel safer.”