in a piece titled Of Slippery Slopes. Even though he assumes others are
tracking, or could track, everything I do in an increasing virtual reality.
That he assumes it does not mean he agrees with it: it is just that because something CAN be done
eventually will be done, for good or ill, because information is power and human beings bend toward power the way weeds bend toward the sun.
He is thus not surprised about the news that has exploded starting with the NSA and the Verizon data gathering. He reminds us of the polling data on American attitudes, which ebbs and flows depending upon how recent the most recent "terrorist" action has been (I use the quotes because of what happened in Boston, which has led to a spike in the willingness of some Americans to defer to the government even as the expense of privacy).
What is key is that only a bit more than 1/3 of Americans want to see expanded government monitoring of cell phones and email, which is what is happening. Blow then begins his real argument with this paragraph:
Furthermore, the fact that this administration has continued or even expanded the practices began under the Bush administration is beyond unsettling and so far down the slippery slope that I can see the darkness of the valley.
so far down the slippery slope - which of course should immediately raise the question, where does it stop?
But there is more.. . .
As he bluntly points out,
this administration is taking unprecedented steps to make sure that the government’s secrets remain private while simultaneously invading the privacy of its citizens.
As I made clear in
, I see that as somewhat in contradiction to the thrust of the Constitution, on both points.
Blow calls this a "Papa knows best" approach to security, of which he writes a bit latger
Even if you trust these “papas” — and I fully trust no politicians — what happens when they are replaced by new ones, ones you do not trust, ones with whom you do not agree?
That brings me back to an exchange with a then very conservative student (who voted for Obama both times) in a discussion about what we knew of NSA actions under GW Bush. He said that he trusted Bush. So I asked which Democrat he would most dislike seeing as President and he practically spit out Hillary Clinton's name. I then asked if he were willing to entrust those same powers to her - he was very pale, almost albino, to begin with, but you could visibly see the blood drain from his face. Which enabled me to make the point that our government is to be bound laws and constitution and not merely the trust we place in any particular politician(s).
Blow points out the dangerous precedents being sent.
He also reminds us of the cost:
Many innocents must be violated so that a few guilty people can be stopped.
Those words are particularly relevant in the midst of the law suit currently underway against NYPD for its stop and frisk policy.
It also reminds me of the debased reasoning of Dick Cheney's 1 % doctrine, that if there were a 1% chance of a terrorist attack that would justify ALL the actions taken to stop it.
At what cost?
What happens to liberty?
What happens to living a life unconstrained by fear?
Blow opines bluntly:
Not only can power be blinding; it can be corruptive.
Imagine what damage the power to indiscriminately collect endless amounts of private data on innocent citizens could do in the hands of men and women of ill intent. The world is no stranger to that kind of abuse.
No it is not.
And we have seen examples of it in our own domestic history, although most Americans do not get to learn about them in school.
I think this is what the President fails to address with the remarks like those he offered in California today.
There is no way to expand government power and authority without simultaneously limiting individual liberty.
Individual liberty is not an absolute, but when we begin to incrementally gnaw away at it, the imagery of raising the temperature on a frog in water or - as Blow prefers - of the slippery slope which once a descent has begun is difficult arrest, should be troubling.
Blow rightly points out that this is not an issue of political right or of political left. Instead he offers phrases like "long-term damage to democratic ideals" and "principles and limits."
And why can the political sides come together?
I will allow his 8 words speak for me as well as him:
this government overreach is a threat to liberty.