Edward Snowden will have his
day in a criminal court—most likely in America. So calling him a
self-indulgent traitor or law-abiding “whistle-blower” is unnecessary today. Nevertheless, what we think about
Snowden’s motives and follow-up actions does influence the larger debate about
the reach of the modern security state.
Are we dealing with a
celebrity-seeker whose fame will fade by fall? Or has he confirmed that
something rotten is going on in our democracy and it must be attended to?
I’m not ready to cosign a
mortgage with Snowden. However, so far, what he’s done and said
demonstrate rare competence and courage. Indeed, it’s exhilarating to see a
computer geek light up Washington.
Old hands say that national
politics aren’t as human as they used to be. Men don’t sweat, drink, and carouse
across party lines the way they once did, when they got more done. Snowden has
exposed that lie too. When esteemed leaders in the 3 branches of government
are embarrassed, when their competence and integrity are questioned, they still
get very angry and, in air-conditioned hearing rooms and rallying together, they
vilify the insolent outsider.
A smooth line of attack is to
declare that this troublemaker is “no saint.” Certainly, I’m not—and I know
at least 1 person who thinks their morals are superior to mine. Jonathan Kay
addressed this leveling proposition in his column "Edward Snowden is no
traitor. But he's no saint".
Kay led by quoting Snowden’s own
explanation for what he’d done: “I don’t want to live in a world where
everything I do and say is recorded.” Kay never suggested that Snowden was
paranoid, only that his flight to numerous authoritarian havens was
hypocritical.
If Snowden were a gentleman,
he’d let his leaks speak for themselves. He’d be safe in solitary in an
American prison and would not be adding to the debate he provoked.
It seems geeks don’t play by
Queensbury rules. Political actors who make history, of course, don’t either.
No comments:
Post a Comment