I often find myself lamenting the willingness of American society and Americans specifically (sometimes, sadly on an individual basis) to accept the erosion of their rights. Freedom (to quote Andrew Shepard in the clip I put up last post) “isn’t easy… you gotta want it bad.” And most people don’t really want something they already feel they have. (Though, let's not forget, if you've got it, you don't need less of it!) That is, most people in America generally feel free and un-intruded upon so they don’t want more freedom, and don’t worry about intrusions into their freedoms if they can’t feel it or see it. Maybe this is why so many people talk about freedom but really just mean “lower taxes” (I’m looking at you Tea Party people - although to be fair). I mean, you feel your taxes when you pay them, but you don’t really feel the government spying on your email unless some G-man rolls up to your door or tries to put you in handcuffs...
.. Or tries to touch your balls!
Then we get seriously pissed. But what better metaphor for Americans’ tolerance of civil liberties erosions than the fact that there was so little outrage about warrantless spying, the Patriot Act, the plan to make the whole internet wiretap ready, torture, assassinating American citizens, rampant secrecy (the list goes on), that only when government agents started literally placing their hands on Americans’ genitals do we pipe up a little bit.
It’s really pretty pathetic, and anyone who fails to see the causal chain between tolerating all of that other – and quite probably worse – bullshit and the government even thinking about implementing this crap in the first place is a fucking dumbass. A lack of vigilance has a cost, civil libertarians like to say. That cost? The government will grab your junk. As if the case needed anymore evidence, the TSA flap proves we have not been very vigilant with our rights and our privacy.
This lesson will be missed though, of course. As is often the case, folks tend not see the inter-connectedness of all these issues. That’s the flip side to the same coin of not caring until it affects you personally. But I would like to at least state my hope that people getting groped will have an epiphany on this relationship (the one between different laws and policies, not the fleeting but intense one they are enjoying with a TSA agent – hey-yo!).
We see this short-sightedness all the time: most people understand that a trip to your favorite burger joint is delicious for about 15 minutes but will contribute to you feeling and looking slightly worse in the longer term. It’s a trade off. Not that we ever seem to notice, but policies work exactly the same way.
This is a very informative article laying out the clear connection between all the different issues that involve a large and intrusive federal government. It points out how progressives and conservatives love big government when it does what they want, but then hide behind Constitutional principles in areas where they don't quite want it to be so big:
A principled stand on the limits of federal power does not begin and end with health care. The Commerce Clause is a double-edged sword: Conservatives cannot wield it in the drug war without making it a useful tool for advancing progressive visions of federal power.
And vice versa. The article effectively points out the tension, and possibly hypocricy, of the views themselves, but I actually don't think the people who hold those views - even the most craven politicians in the group - are themselves hypocrites. They're not compromising a principle for convenience, they never started with the principle to begin with. They don't see the connection.
For example, much has been made of these comments by Senator Jay Rockefeller, where he says that perhaps FOX News and MSNBC should be taken off the air by the FCC. Most of the attention has been critical which is actually in contrast with most people's views on the Citizens United ruling that "gave corporations free speech rights!" In response to that opinion, many people have said that sure, they concede the importance of free speech but don't think it applies as strongly to corporations and think it can be bent to "improve public discourse," or some such justification. But in the case of the Senator's proposal, FOX and MSNBC are corporations (for profit!) and Rockefeller's justifications for his idea are pretty familiar - wrong though they may be. In other words, if you hate the Citizens United opinion and disagree with Senator Rockefeller, then you're pretty mixed up when it comes to free speech.
There's also this incredibly bizarre editorial from the Philly Inquirer about WIkiLeaks, by William C. Kashatus. It starts by luading the importance of transparency in government and the role that the free press plays in that:
As a self-governing society, we rightfully condemn any government - including our own - that attempts to shield its misjudgments, incompetence, or misconduct from public scrutiny. Such "government secrets" must be exposed because they threaten to destroy the individual liberties and collective freedom democracy depends on.
All too often, government officials attempt to maintain secrecy by invoking the claim of national security, as President Obama and his predecessor have been accused of doing. We rely on the integrity and wisdom of the free press to determine which national secrets are legitimate and which are illegitimate.
But then the editorial highlights the fact that some of what Wikileaks leaked was sensitive information that might endanger lives, and concludes:
WikiLeaks has acted recklessly, creating a clear and imminent danger to both U.S. and international security. The Obama administration should not only join other NATO countries in demanding the removal of classified documents from the WikiLeaks website, but also bring criminal charges against Assange and stop his travels across international borders. That would help restore the right balance between freedom of the press and international security.
So, according to Kashatus, WikiLeaks should be wiped from the earth essentially because they perhaps leaked too much information. No "do better next time," just jail. Moreover, even if that view is appropriate on this particular issue, does anyone really think that the government will only go after those who leak security-compromising info? Or will they also pursue those who leak its "misjudgments, incompetence, or misconduct" and just say it compromises security? (I emailed the author to ask him this, and to see if he could specify what criminal charges should be brought, twice. He replied once, only to suggest I might feel differently if I had a family member serving in combat.)
In many ways, that editorial is emblematic of the American view on these freedoms: we can write flowery words about how great they are, and we teach them to our kids, and we talk them up on Independence day, or when we talk about the troops. But, when we see them in action, in the lives of others, they make us pretty uncomfortable. And, when we see them slowly dissipate in our own lives, we just sit by silently.
At every turn the government is more emboldened and takes a little more, until they are literally grabbing you by the dick.
No comments:
Post a Comment