This is a good change. The color-coded system probably had value at the start, when there were many reports of “chatter” about this or that attack and it was hard for a nervous public to know whether this week’s report of chatter should make them more concerned than last week’s. In fact, I seem to remember the press beating up Bush-administration spokesmen about this, as though conflicting chatter stories were somehow the administration’s fault.

The color system was a response to a desire by the public for an overall assessment of risk at a time when attacks were expected at any time. Now, given the government’s success at heading off attacks, an unduly nervous public overreacting to chatter is not much of a concern.

Meanwhile, the system’s flaws have become more salient. Among them is the ratchet effect. Nothing in Washington is certain, but this much is near certain: If a successful attack happens to be carried out three days after the Homeland Security secretary cuts the threat level, then there will be a new Homeland Security secretary by day four. So, secretaries aren’t exactly quick to cut the threat level, making it hard for the system to work as a day-to-day barometer of threat.

One thing worth pointing out is the civility being displayed on this issue. Secretary Napolitano did something that made sense but that would be easy to caricature, and Rep. Peter King (R., N.Y.), the new chairman of the House Homeland Security committee, ignored the easy partisan layup and instead offered cautious praise.

You’d almost have hope for bipartisan agreement on fighting terrorism, if not for ex-chairman Bennie Thompson’s (D., Miss.) disappointing determination to keep the good old days alive.

— Stewart Baker served as assistant secretary of homeland security for policy under Pres. George W. Bush and is the author of Skating on Stilts: Why We Aren’t Stopping Tomorrow’s Terrorism.