Final answer:
Michael Levin and Charles Krauthammer support the use of terror by using the Munich Analogy, which cautions against appeasement like that before World War II. This analogy equates inaction against terrorism with potential larger-scale catastrophes, drawing from historical and contemporary contexts.
Step-by-step explanation:
Michael Levin and Charles Krauthammer have both used the Munich Analogy to support the use of terror. The Munich Analogy refers to the appeasement that occurred at Munich before World War II, suggesting that not acting against aggressors or terrorism can lead to disastrous results. It often warns against the dangers of allowing aggression without opposition, comparing scenarios to Hitler's Germany and suggesting parallels to more contemporary threats such as Putin's Russia.
In the context of terror management theory, the threat of terror can lead to increased support for leaders who align with one's cultural worldviews, as described by the work of Florette Cohen and Sheldon Solomon. This psychological response can be tied to the fear and subsequent actions taken by governments, such as the Reagan administration's reaction to terrorism in Lebanon or the questionable actions taken during the surge in Iraq under the Bush administration. These are complex and controversial debates that balance the protection of national security against the defense of civil liberties and ethical considerations.