Carte Blanche?

Sometimes we do a thing in order to find out the reason for it.  Sometimes our actions are questions not answers.
            John Le Carre, A Perfect Spy 

Over the last few days, it has been revealed that the National Security Administration was monitoring German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s phone (as well as Americans’ phone and internet purchasing activities).  The NSA explained away its action by saying one, everyone does it and two, it was not collecting specific details.  While some Americans are outraged, Germans are more appropriately angry and Ms. Merkel, who was raised in the surveillance state of East Germany, understands all too well the implications.  From the American point of view however, the cries of injustice ring a little hollow.  The idea of government espionage and the protesting Americans’ accusations have technological, societal and moral components and implications.

First, the issue of U.S. government espionage is a product of technological advancements that Americans have increasingly demanded.  Over the last couple of decades, we have required from technology greater power and access to our normal lives and previously considered private domains.  We incessantly and without thinking give our information over at the drop of a hat so that credit card companies and grocery stores can monitor our purchasing and food consumption habits.  Yet, we are outraged by our government’s ability and willingness to use technology to monitor the behavior of foreign leaders (or us) – be they friendly or not.  We demand our lives be open books for our own benefit and feign shock and dismay that others are also benefiting.

Second, this is a societal issue.  We demand that our government know everything.  When the September 11^th attacks happened, some called for answers and wondered why our government did not know.  When Americans are killed overseas, we want to know when the chain of command broke down, why and what the government plans to do about it.  As a society, we are constantly amping up our expectations of government and then wonder why they are listening to or recording everything.  We cannot have both concepts.  We have, over the decades, created a myth that a government can and should be capable of all matter of things and there is a price for that knowledge. 

Lastly, there is a moral implication to the American outrage.  Julian Assange, Bradley Manning, Edward Snowden and others of that ilk have used various methods not dissimilar to our government to hack into and dispense information in such a way as to compromise the United States and, at least initially, get away with it.  Some American protestors hail them as “heroes.”  It would seem, at the least, there is a certain moral relativism that makes the charges as it relates to the government’s actions.  It’s legitimate to question the morality of the U.S. government and its efforts to monitor as much as possible but what are Americans doing to encourage this behavior?  By our acceptance of one, do we not accept the other?  Those who point to the actions of the government leading to the response are suggesting that the end justifies the means.  Such arguments are on shaky moral ground.   

It is not surprising that our intelligence efforts are so pervasive.  I don’t prescribe to the attitude that “those with nothing to hide have nothing to fear.”  That argument is ambiguous and diverting.  The answer lies with Abraham Lincoln.  When he describes a government “of the people, by the people, for the people,” he is not speaking of just the liberties we enjoy as citizens of this democracy.  He is also speaking to the responsibilities of American citizens.  We are not casual observers of the things that transpire in our government and in our society.  We allow it and in doing so, bad things happen.  I do believe that our government should have secrets in order for it to do its job and espionage is essential.  It’s also evident that our expectations and demands of government are not realistic.  A traditional liberal approach requires a paternalistic government.  I think that is dangerous and it might be what we have.