Terrorism has generally failed to achieve its primary objective of changing the foundations of targeted state power, and for this reason it has been scorned by revolutionaries as it has earned the wrath of conservatives. Terrorism has had mixed success in achieving its secondary objectives, i.e., being taken seriously by established authority, obtaining significant media coverage, and insinuating itself as a factor in negotiations involving critical geopolitical areas. In its tertiary goals, terrorism has been especially effective. It has reduced the operational range of democratic societies, has compelled democratic societies to curb essential freedoms in the name of survival, and in so doing, has provided support to its claim that democracies are vulnerable to terrorist action and that they are hypocritical in their devotion to democratic values. Many policy proposals seek a response to terrorism that is somewhere between the values of a democracy and a dictatorship. Proposals have focused on stronger weapons controls, computerized surveillance systems, juridical limits on civil compliance with illegal demands, and censorship of mass media to prevent undue publicity for terrorist activities. Such proposals inevitably erode the democratic structure of a society. Policy-oriented safety devices against terrorism are too easily extended to become vehicles for institutionalized constraints upon the body politic. Thus, terrorism has little to do with the rise and fall of societies but has a significant influence on the limits each society imposes on the civil liberties of its citizenry in the name of survival. The preservation of a democratic structure in the face of terrorism may require that terrorism be accepted as a risk and an injury to be borne in a democracy. Sixteen footnotes are provided.