There's an interesting survey being conducted today by iwon.com concerning former FBI deputy director W. Mark Felt's actions as "Deep Throat" 30 years ago. The survey questions whether Felt served the national good or did a disservice to his country by leaking information
Would you be "Deep Throat" today if you had the chance?
Do you believe that Felt 'did the right thing' or betrayed his superiors and his country by leaking information on a cover-up that reached all the way to the Oval Office. Defenders said that he should be treated as a hero who helped bring down a corrupt administration. Critics called him a "snake" who violated an oath to keep national secrets.
Now granted, this survey and others like it are not scientific, but I was dumbfounded by the results (as of 8:30 EST).
Do you believe that W. Mark Felt should be commended or criticized for his actions?
49% of respondents believe that Felt should be commended for helping to expose corruption
25% of respondents believe that Felt should be criticized for betraying his superiors and leaking secrets.
26% of respondents are not sure.
Now two things struck me. First, how can you not be sure, one way or the other, after everything that has been revealed over the last 30 years. Do these responses reflect apathy, ignorance of history, or an inability to think critically and make decisions?
Second, how can such a sizable portion of survey respondents (25%) believe that revealing facts behind a national crime is to be criticised?
Looking back 30 years on the actions of an opposing political party, it may be easier to second guess the decisions made by others. But ask yourself, what if you knew of actions taken by a public official that were clearly illegal (not just a political gaffe like owning a SUV), of great impact (not just a parking ticket), and directly related to the responsibilities of the official's position (not just a sexual encounter).
Would you disclose this information about someone in your own political party who you strongly supported and otherwise continue to support (e.g., if you were a long-time contributer to the politician and knew him or her personally)?
Would you do it if you knew that it would change the balance of power in the area the politician represents for a considerable period of time (e.g., the politician was the first Democrat elected to the position in decades)?
Would you do it if it would cause a major embarrassment and cast the country in a poor light (e.g., the politician conspired with others to commit election fraud)?
Would you do it if it would reveal national secrets that could be used by enemies to attack us (e.g., the politician diverted security funds making something vunerable)?
Take this poll and add your comments.