Glenn Greenwald, one of several bloggers I read every day (the others being Atrios, Andrew Sullivan and Talking Points Memo), has a new book out in which he examines the impact of the Bush administration’s view of us vs. them, good vs. evil on the administration itself, on the country and on the world.

Interesting stuff if you believe, as I do, that we’ve actually seen an erosion of liberty these past years, that we’ve seen the country trend in a startlingly authoritarian direction and that the pace of this trend could quicken if there’s another major terror attack on our soil, or we elect “an even more authoritarian-minded president,” as Greenwald puts it today.

Although I’ve wondered - how would we react to another major terror strike in this country? And what if it wasn’t on the scale of 9/11; what if it was a hand grenade at a shopping mall which, say, kills three and wounds 20.

In one respect, I’d expect the country as a whole to retreat back into the fetal position we occupied in the months after 9/11. And as fear makes a potent political weapon - as we’ve seen in recent years - I’d expect some to fan those flames; in one sense, another attack could be seen as a fortiutous event for authoritarians.

But it might not be so simple. Might our reaction depend on who did the bombing? Officials will immediately label the bomber al Qaeda, which in fact he or she might be; but we’ve heard a great deal about how tomorrow terrorists are learning their trade as insurgents in Iraq today, and what if the bomber is from Iraq? Might that not generate anger at the administration, if its war in Iraq is ultimately brought home?

All academic stuff, and everyone obviously hope it remains that way. But at some point in time, those we have chosen to fight there are likely to try and fight here. Some will say it butresses the original case for war in the Middle East. My guess is that a greater number will realize, finally, that we’ve kicked over the hornet’s nest.