Many people on DKos are justifiably pissed off about the recent revelations about the NSA, leaked by Edward Snowden. Others here have called for Snowden to be jailed, and consider his revelations to have harmed the USA. To be clear from the outset, I am already on record as seeing the widespread collection of phone and computer metadata as a serious infringement of civil rights and tentatively (until more facts are known) Snowden as a hero.
All that said, I feel that the rhetoric of the NSA debate has gotten out of hand. So here goes the statement that will get me flamed.
The recent disclosures about the NSA are critically important and damning of the Obama administration...but they are not even close to the most important political, economic or social issues of our time. At a minimum, I would place Afghanistan, the war on terror, gun control, universal health care, social security, global warming and reproductive rights ahead of the recent disclosures. I rank these issues by a simple standard, being alive is more important than maintaining privacy. None of this is to suggest that privacy is unimportant, but it is less important than the things that kill people.
I'll explain below the squiggle.
I write this diary not to diminish the importance of the massive breaches of privacy by the NSA. I have long been an ACLU supporter, and think that Snowdon's leaks will greatly aid the ACLU in their lawsuits demanding that the NSA stop engaging in what I believe are unconstitutional invasions of privacy.
I write this diary in response to those who are stating that anyone who does not actively oppose the NSA are necessarily supporting it. This absolutist rhetoric bothers me. Yes, there are people on DKos who actively support the NSA wiretapping. I have no problem with folks who take them to task. But there are many other people, both here at DKos and outside of DKos, who have chosen to focus their primary attention on other issues. Their silence is not tacit support of the NSA--it is only silence.
I am always troubled by "you are with us or against us" rhetoric. It usually degenerates into absolutism, becoming "you agree with every single little detail of what I say, or you are an enemy." Absolutist rhetoric is, by design, exclusionary. It presents all silence as opposition, all disagreement--however muted--as part of a unified 'enemy'. But neither is true. Silence is silence, and disagreement can come from many directions.
We all have limited time and energy to dedicate toward the issues that matter most to us. We all have jobs, lives and constraints on our time. A few years ago I pretty much withdrew from all political activities because my wife was sick and work was overwhelming. I read the paper, kept up on things, but couldn't devote time to fight the many injustices I read about. My silence was not a tacit acceptance of unjust policy, only a tacit acceptance that I did not have the time or energy to fight.
And now, I do have time and energy--but not unlimited time and energy. So, while I oppose the actions of the NSA, oppose the creeping surveillance state that is being promoted by both democrats and republicans, and oppose those who are willing to give up their privacy for a misplaced sense of safety, I do not believe that the NSA is the single most important issue of our time. Its not even close.
So, I will comment occasionally about the NSA, I might tip and rec diaries about the NSA, but I do not accept that this is the single most important issue of the day--the one issue that defines where I stand politically. I will focus instead on issues of life and death, on war, hunger and health. I understand that others will focus elsewhere, and that is good--because the actions of the NSA are important, are dangerous, and must be stopped. Somebody needs to be working on that while I work on other things.
Just don't tell me that my silence equals complicity while you do it. That just pisses me off.