Our Big Brother

To begin with, I don't propose to soft-pedal my view of the National Security Agency's program of essentially unrestricted scrutiny of Americans' private communications.

The Constitution envisions no such sweeping governmental powers.  The regime of internal intelligence established and maintained under the Patriot Act - with the active participation of Presidents Bush and Obama - has no place in a free society.

But the Bush-Obama national security state - and yes, I've coupled their names - demonstrates the manifest willingness of both political parties to disregard individual liberty in the service of what President Eisenhower would surely have termed the "military-intelligence-industrial complex".

Let us call the NSA snooping program what it properly is - part of a Bush-Obama policy which also includes the use of drones to assassinate suspected terrorists - occasionally including American citizens; the perpetuation of imprisonment without trial at Guantánamo Bay; extraordinary rendition; and other gross breaches with our proud tradition of ordered liberty.

And it's nothing new.  We can add a dozen years of post-9/11 "extra-constitutional" behavior to decades of snoopery and police excesses resulting from our eternal War on Drugs.  A "war" which - while doing almost nothing to make drugs inaccessible to American consumers - has contributed immeasurably to the development of intrusive technologies; enriched narcotics rings and private prison companies; undermined the integrity and professionalism of governments, judicial systems and police forces around the world; and, of course, continuously nibbled away at our Bill of Rights.

As with the War on Drugs, both political parties, and the corporate elites for which they labor, have readily accommodated themselves to the increased power - and money - associated with the so-called War on Terror.  (A nonsensical term which is the logical equivalent of a "war on flanking maneuvers".)

The War on Terror is Big Government with a vengeance.  One would almost say, Big Brother.  The setup is perfect.  The enemy is invisible, amorphous and - for all the drama of its occasional successes - of extremely limited capability compared with, say, the Soviet Union of the 1960s. 

We declare war against such an ethereal enemy which - having no territory or regular army - cannot, logically, be finally defeated.  To our Oceania, "Drugs" have long provided a reliable Eastasia.  Since 9/11, "Terror" provides a nifty Eurasia.  (If you are groping for the references, it's time to re-read 1984.)

Our political classes love "wars" like this.  Wars which cannot be won - and thus, cannot be ended - are an ideal distraction from the business of solving problems which can be solved, but only by making difficult political choices.

A dysfunctional Congress and an aimless administration may be unable to reform the tax code; limit the impact of money in our elections; control health-care costs or the rising cost of college education; or do anyhing meaningful about global climate change - but they can look like they are doing something by making billion-dollar gestures in their two favorite, unwinnable wars.

And if the result is a continual erosion of our civil liberties and personal privacy, what is that to winning the next election?

So it's no wonder Congressional leaders of both parties are hyperventilating over Ed Snowden's whistle-blowing.  Senator Dianne Feinstein, whom I have long admired, completely jumped the shark when she added her voice to the likes of Speaker John Boehner in calling Snowden a "traitor". 

The fact is that Snowden - whatever his personal motives - has done us all a great service.

A debate has now begun in this country.  If we do not quickly lose interest, as we are wont to do - we may soon learn a good deal about what the government has been doing under cover of protecting us against its favorite Enemy. 

And whether we are still a people who value our liberty - even when we are asked to exchange it for the will'o'the wisp of safety.