Snowden DU Cognitive Dissonance Syndrome

[NoodleyAppendage]

I can't help but wonder if some of the reflexive Snowden-bashing around here is less about his actions and more about ideology.

Honestly, if we had a uber-Conservative President right now, like a President Romney, would you still think Snowden a traitor or hero?

I think that we all need to assess why many are reacting so virulently to Snowden's actions.

Are those who think ill of him pissed about his actions or are they just responding to the cognitive dissonance that his actions have produced in the context of a Democratic administration and popular President?

[mhatrw]

1. I'd still hate him if he were skewering Bush.

But that's just because I am an authoritarian above all else.

[sabrina 1]

36. Did you hate Risen then?

[JaneyVee]

2. Or, perhaps Edward Snowden is neither entirely heroic nor entirely treasonous.

[Deep13]

31. No! Pick a side! We're at war!

Sorry, was channeling my inner Colbert.

Reality has trouble fitting into our pre-existing constructs.

[treestar]

3. I don't have a thing against classified documents in every case

So I'd still think he was wrong. I'd hate Romney but I don't think I would believe that meant this country has no right to national security.

Rmoney would probably continue the Bush habit of not getting a FISA warrant. Rmoney could also be failing to stop terrorist attacks and we'd have more of them.

We'd still be at war, too, so likely no one would care. We'd have Iraq news to get outraged about, for example.

Snowden said he was disappointed in Obama, so he wouldn't have had his same reason for doing it either.

[NoOneMan]

4. SOFA

Backwater Bush signed it. Thats why the US isn't in Iraq.

The US is still at war. They are still in Afghanistan, and God knows where else. People are too bored with war to be exceptionally outraged in any case right now

[NoodleyAppendage]

5. Your last point is interesting, though I suspect Snowden would still have revealed...

...if it was Bush or Romney in office.

J

[sabrina 1]

37. How did you feel about the leaks during the Bush administration? Did you agree that the NYT

would have had 'blood on its hands' if there had been another terror attack for publishing the leaks?

[nadinbrzezinski]

6. I think there is some cognitive dissonance in place.

It's more than just that, but it is part of the equation.

[still_one]

7. No, I the majority bashing Snowden are just as sincere as those advocating his situation

those bashing him are doing it because he went to China and gave them information about our spying on them.

Upset with potential spying on Americans is one thing, but exposing our network to China, and others crosses the line for many

[NoodleyAppendage]

11. Do you honestly believe that China wasn't already aware of the US hacking?

Really? Come on.

J

[hrmjustin]

17. That is not the point. He went to a foreign nation to reveal our secrets.

He made a choice and has to live with the fact he can't come back here unless he is prepared to go to jail.

[rhett o rick]

34. "He went to a foreign nation to reveal our secrets." And your dog told you that.

Rationalization is the key to your happiness.

[hrmjustin]

55. I think it is clear what he did.

[rhett o rick]

59. I find it interesting that you are so definite on knowing what he did and why.

Do you have a crystal ball? Are you believing the Corporate Media? Are you prejudiced because you dont want to know anything bad about your government? Those are all rhetorical questions. Certainty isnt what I would call a typical aspect of being a "politically liberal" minded person.

To those that are certain what and why Snowden did what he did, I say, please keep an open mind. You may be correct but again what if you arent?

[still_one]

22. It is not the point, and I do not believe they were aware of Hong Kong being hacked. My main point

Is that I do not believe either position on Snowden is from an insincere point by those making it on all sides

[creeksneakers2]

29. Not the specifics

Snowden gave them specifics.

[sabrina 1]

38. So you were against the leaks during the Bush years then, the ones that caused the accusation

that 'if there is another terror attack, the NYT would have blood on its hands' for publishing them. Airc, not a single Dem was opposed to the release of all that info at the time. Yet, the Intel Community claimed that it caused great harm to the country. Same Intel Community. So I assume you supported Bush when he stated that it was irresponsible and could cause a terror attack at the time??

[cthulu2016]

8. Anyone who thinks Snowden is a hero or a villain needs to read fewer comics

I never met the guy. He doesn't mean shit to me as a human being. I find his motivations irrelevant except maybe on a human interest level, but he doesn't intrigue me either. I do not care what he has to say, either.

He *says* the NSA does this or that? Who cares? It is some shit somebody says. Absent striking evidence in support I find almost anything he *says* to be of no interest.

The documents themselves are the story here. Actual NSA policy and activities. That's the story. I had heard of the NSA before last week and will be hearing about the NSA ten years from now. That's the story. Snowden? Who fucking cares? A hero? Whatever. A villain? Hey, if that helps you get through the night...

It's like if Einstein only worked up relativity to impress Jodie Foster. So what? Then that's why he did it... which wouldn't change whether the sun's gravity does or does not bend the light of distant stars visible around the edge of the sun.

And those, on either side, who don't get that Snowden means nothing really need to consume fewer comic books and teenage vampire romances and whatever other pablum makes them think that what is noteworthy about NSA policy is personalities and heroes vs. villains stuff.

[NoOneMan]

10. Yep, totally agree

[JaneyVee]

14. I agree that who cares if he is a hero or a traitor, but his credibility does matter

because his version of the story is being refuted by others.

[nadinbrzezinski]

25. But the documents are not

And his story has been corroborated by previous whistleblowers like Drake and Bimmey...hell, even a former outed CIA agent has corroborated the story.

Those people have bona fides.

[morningfog]

15. You are 100 percent correct. NSA is the story

and should be the story. Snowden is irrelevant. The shift to focusing on his pursuit from his personal life and motivation is just further distraction.

I hope that more info is released to refocus on what matters here.

[GoneFishin]

19. They took a few futile shots at the documents, then changed tactics to shooting the messenger.

And they have been shooting the messenger ever since.

[ecstatic]

30. That's me all the way

If I sometimes sound annoyed with him, it's not so much him but the chatter surrounding him that's annoying. Extreme hyperbole (in either direction) is annoying.

[treestar]

13. And you actually complained about being called names?

[RobertEarl]

18. Those other names were made up bs

What he said about fuckdaddies is the truth!

Bwahahahaha

[hrmjustin]

12. I don't trust him. That does not mean I agree with what the government is doing.

I don't trust him nor his motives. God knows what other info he has and what kind of damage it could do if it releases it. He made a promise and he chose to break that promise. He has to live with the consequences of his actions.

[dkf]

26. What about our leaders who swore to uphold the constitution?

I didn't vote for Snowden so he owes me nothing. My leaders? They do owe me something.

[hrmjustin]

27. I agree that they owe us something.

I don't think what the government is doing is a good thing. But Snowden made his choice and now he has to live with it.

[dkf]

28. He made a choice to put the collective above himself. Most people don't have the guts.

This doesn't gain him anything.

[hrmjustin]

33. I respect your opinion but I disagree with it.

Does it gain him anything I do not know. If he is getting any profits from this I do not know. I do not trust someone who takes 4 computers of classified information to a foreign nation. God knows what other secrets he has that could do real damage to us if he releases it.

[dkf]

50. Sadly I now trust him more than our Elected leaders.

I understand why Snowden is doing what he is doing. I don't understand why our elites want to store every bit of data on all of us. It's excessive and their crackdown on letting us know what is going on is suspicious.

[lindysalsagal]

58. Bingo. That's the point. Thankyou.

This needed exposure, and there's no delicate way to do it.

[rhett o rick]

35. Forget Snowden, do you trust Ms. Plame and Mr. Wilson? nm

[hrmjustin]

56. Do I trust them? I think they were wronged by the government.

Why do I need to trust them or not?

[marions ghost]

16. Not sure that some people

accept the implications of this kind of data-mining. They just can't imagine the downside to it.

[frazzled]

20. For me the cognitive dissonance is about ...

The past 11 1/2 years. I've been following these issues since the beginning with TIA, when we first learned about metadata and such. Then TIA was scuttled because it was rogue and scary, and the operations were transferred into the intelligence agencies. We knew all that. But the Bush administration refused to accede to much oversight or any warrants altogether. And we knew there were government presences at Google and such. We knew all this. It was pretty disturbing then; and yet the hue and cry here was ten times less than we're getting now.

Then, in 2008, when the Democrats took the House, a lot of changes were made, fairly positive ones. (Read Nancy Pelosi's recently released chart detailing the improvements made by Congress:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/148767817/Chart-On-Surveillance-Oversight-Prepared-By-Nancy-Pelosi-For-Democratic-house-Members

In addition, towards the end of the Bush administration I began to realize that nothing bad had really happened on a large public scale as a result of this spying. We didn't turn into a fascist state where people were being imprisoned for their beliefs. Sure, there were a few bad calls and cases, but I'm talking about the kind of police state activity that would make us feel like we were living in Argentina during the Dirty War, when masses of ordinary citizens were disappeared, and tortured or killed. For their beliefs.

What Snowden has revealed is not new to me and should not be new to anyone who's been paying attention. And that anyone should be surprised or shocked that the United States intelligence agencies ... um, actually spy on other countries. Well, that's just stupid: that's what they do.

The outrage seems more manufactured--a sort of crazy amalgam post-Occupy aspirations, Tea Party "give me liberty" libertarianism (really, DU feels like Rand Paul Underground more than Democratic Underground these days), romantic notions of Tahrir Square, and the whole Anonymous, Wikileaks hacking culture.

And here's what I feel: I'm way more scared of these wholly nontransparent, outside the law hacking outfits and individuals than I am of anything the government is doing here at home. I don't see them as whistleblowers or heroic in any way.

The cognitive dissonance I feel has to do with the "yay Russia and Venezuela, boo America" attitudes I see all over the place here. I mean really, are you freaking kidding me?

Maybe it's all because I remember how enthused with this kind of political romanticism I was when I was younger. I wore a Mao button everywhere on my lapel and thought the Cultural Revolution was swell. Until I met people whose lives had been decimated by that regime and its policies. I felt ashamed at my naivete, and I swore to be much more circumspect and not to led ideological factors sway my responses. No, I'm not one whit more conservative than I was then: I'm just as liberal, but more realistic, more cautious in hewing to romantic ideological trappings.

What saddens me here is that I see so much wrongheaded, mixed up, misinformed grandstanding lately, and so much illiberal thought that thinks itself to be the epitome of liberalism. I'm dumbfounded by it. Fortunately, out in the real world, I'm not seeing any of this romanticism about l'Affaire Snowden at all.

[Bobbie Jo]

23. Good post. nt

[tavalon]

40. Thank you for mentioning TIA

I was starting to think I was the lone soul who remembered that travesty, which was "shut down", otherwise known as being given a name change.

[Summer Hathaway]

41. Excellent post.

It should be an OP.

[SunSeeker]

44. Thank you.

[JDPriestly]

46. The police crackdown on the Occupiers was pretty horrible.

The executive has a reach into the metadata of everyone in every branch of government as well as every activist in every party, everyone with a political opinion or a complaint.
Wall Street colluded to fix interest rates and just about everything else and no one has been prosecuted.
Lenders committed fraud in order to foreclose on homeowners who had been goaded into mortgages that cost more than the houses that were their security, but no lenders were prosecuted, not to speak of anyway.
We have seen fraud upon fraud, no indictments.

And meanwhile, our government is spying on all our metadata, knows who we call, when, who we e-mail, when and all our financial relationships, all our family and friends and just how often we are in contact with them.

But it's all cool because only a few people have been arrested or beaten by the police. Only a few have lost their jobs. Only a small percentage of homeowners lost their homes. Only a small proportion of Americans declared bankruptcy. So it's all cool with the government snooping on our private business.

"We think we are free."

http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/511928.html

"What happened here was the gradual habituation of the people, little by little, to being governed by surprise; to receiving decisions deliberated in secret; to believing that the situation was so complicated that the government had to act on information which the people could not understand, or so dangerous that, even if the people could not understand it, it could not be released because of national security. And their sense of identification with Hitler, their trust in him, made it easier to widen this gap and reassured those who would otherwise have worried about it.

"This separation of government from people, this widening of the gap, took place so gradually and so insensibly, each step disguised (perhaps not even intentionally) as a temporary emergency measure or associated with true patriotic allegiance or with real social purposes. And all the crises and reforms (real reforms, too) so occupied the people that they did not see the slow motion underneath, of the whole process of government growing remoter and remoter.

. . . .
. . . "The dictatorship, and the whole process of its coming into being, was above all diverting. It provided an excuse not to think for people who did not want to think anyway. I do not speak of your ‘little men,’ your baker and so on; I speak of my colleagues and myself, learned men, mind you. Most of us did not want to think about fundamental things and never had. There was no need to. Nazism gave us some dreadful, fundamental things to think about—we were decent people—and kept us so busy with continuous changes and ‘crises’ and so fascinated, yes, fascinated, by the machinations of the ‘national enemies,’ without and within, that we had no time to think about these dreadful things that were growing, little by little, all around us. Unconsciously, I suppose, we were grateful. Who wants to think?

"To live in this process is absolutely not to be able to notice it—please try to believe me—unless one has a much greater degree of political awareness, acuity, than most of us had ever had occasion to develop. Each step was so small, so inconsequential, so well explained or, on occasion, ‘regretted,’ that, unless one were detached from the whole process from the beginning, unless one understood what the whole thing was in principle, what all these ‘little measures’ that no ‘patriotic German’ could resent must some day lead to, one no more saw it developing from day to day than a farmer in his field sees the corn growing. One day it is over his head.

. . . .

[flamingdem]

47. I agree that the romanticism is a DU thing

Others in the real world look for motive.

Also, there's a crew here that's looking for anyway to attack Obama.

Some are legit and some are here for nefarious purposes. That skews
the postings. It keeps the forum lively.

[HardTimes99]

49. I really like your post, although I disagree with substantial portions of it. Since you mention

the Mao button you wore, I should tell you that the muted and not-so-muted China bashing in evidence here over the past few days betrays a significant ahistoricism about the U.S.' relations with China after 1945. Specifically, we backed Chiang (a corrupt motherfucker who made and makes Saddam look like an altar boy) and pretended that China didn't exist for 30 years!

And have you had a chance yet to dip your toes into the waters of the "Insider Threat Program"? Speaking of amalgams, if the Insider Threat Program doesn't cause you to get a good ole' Loyalty Oath\Red Scare\Cointelpro deja vu feeling flowing through your veins, well, I'll eat my hat. My wife and I (both in our early 50s, so babes in the woods relative to the Cultural Revolution era) have been sitting around this weekend stunned and speechless.

A couple links to get you started:

The McClatchy source article: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/
Charlie Pierce's take for Esquire: http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/Big_Brother_Takes_A_Government_Job

[Fumesucker]

51. So you were carrying pictures of Chairman Mao?

Even John Lennon never went that far.

[marions ghost]

54. Well written BS

--so logical and with an air of truthiness.

The use of the word "romanticism" in describing legitimate concerns............................................

And as for this whine: "yay Russia and Venezuela, boo America attitudes I see all over the place here" -- Laughably Wrong. You're seeing a loud Boo Corporatocracy here. Let's get that straight.

"Rand Paul Underground" -- clever but

We've heard these little testimonials somewhere before....oh yeah...

[sagat]

57. Good post.

[MrMickeysMom]

21. Cognitive Dissonance has my vote...

Has anyone seen Valerie Plame's comments relating to this? I think she's a fair judge, so for all you who didn't consider it...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/19/valerie-plame_n_3466824.html

[NoodleyAppendage]

24. Thanks for this! n/t

J

[davidpdx]

32. I think there are several issues

More is coming out about the background check process and the possible holes in the system that are allowing security clearance without thoroughly looking into the persons background.

The issue that he left the US with classified documents. Which is illegal, regardless of people claiming his a whistle-blower (because he's not).

That he has sought refuge through Hong Kong (a protectorate of China), then gone through Russia, Cuba, Venezuela, and to Ecuador doesn't give him the right to claim whistle-blower status, he is running.

You can disagree with the surveillance and still be unhappy about how the entire thing has come about. The two are not mutually exclusive as some would suggest.

[tavalon]

39. I'm able to hold two views simultaneously,

He is a hero and he is irrelevant. What he did was right action. He will not be given a heroes welcome for it. This was going to come out eventually, heck many of us remember TIA, PRISMS previous incarnation. But whoever chose to leak it also chose to lose his life for it. He may be murdered or imprisoned, tortured or just hidden in exile. His life, as he knew it, is over.

I wonder how many people would do that?

[HardTimes99]

42. Well put! - nt

[pnwmom]

43. How could someone who is deliberately interfering with US diplomacy with Russia and China

be considered a hero?

He gave up any chance to be widely considered a hero when he did that.

[JDPriestly]

48. How can anyone who contributes to corrupting democracy be viewed as a hero?

Our government is little by little turning into a dictatorship.

They thought they were free.

"What happened here was the gradual habituation of the people, little by little, to being governed by surprise; to receiving decisions deliberated in secret; to believing that the situation was so complicated that the government had to act on information which the people could not understand, or so dangerous that, even if the people could not understand it, it could not be released because of national security. And their sense of identification with Hitler, their trust in him, made it easier to widen this gap and reassured those who would otherwise have worried about it.

"This separation of government from people, this widening of the gap, took place so gradually and so insensibly, each step disguised (perhaps not even intentionally) as a temporary emergency measure or associated with true patriotic allegiance or with real social purposes. And all the crises and reforms (real reforms, too) so occupied the people that they did not see the slow motion underneath, of the whole process of government growing remoter and remoter.

"You will understand me when I say that my Middle High German was my life. It was all I cared about. I was a scholar, a specialist. Then, suddenly, I was plunged into all the new activity, as the university was drawn into the new situation; meetings, conferences, interviews, ceremonies, and, above all, papers to be filled out, reports, bibliographies, lists, questionnaires. And on top of that were the demands in the community, the things in which one had to, was ‘expected to’ participate that had not been there or had not been important before. It was all rigmarole, of course, but it consumed all one’s energies, coming on top of the work one really wanted to do. You can see how easy it was, then, not to think about fundamental things. One had no time."

"Those," I said, "are the words of my friend the baker. ‘One had no time to think. There was so much going on.’"

"Your friend the baker was right," said my colleague. "The dictatorship, and the whole process of its coming into being, was above all diverting. It provided an excuse not to think for people who did not want to think anyway. I do not speak of your ‘little men,’ your baker and so on; I speak of my colleagues and myself, learned men, mind you. Most of us did not want to think about fundamental things and never had. There was no need to. Nazism gave us some dreadful, fundamental things to think about—we were decent people—and kept us so busy with continuous changes and ‘crises’ and so fascinated, yes, fascinated, by the machinations of the ‘national enemies,’ without and within, that we had no time to think about these dreadful things that were growing, little by little, all around us. Unconsciously, I suppose, we were grateful. Who wants to think?

"To live in this process is absolutely not to be able to notice it—please try to believe me—unless one has a much greater degree of political awareness, acuity, than most of us had ever had occasion to develop. Each step was so small, so inconsequential, so well explained or, on occasion, ‘regretted,’ that, unless one were detached from the whole process from the beginning, unless one understood what the whole thing was in principle, what all these ‘little measures’ that no ‘patriotic German’ could resent must some day lead to, one no more saw it developing from day to day than a farmer in his field sees the corn growing. One day it is over his head.

http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/511928.html

Fascism does not necessarily come in with guns blazing. Sometimes it takes over slowly. It can simply be a reaction to social unrest or fear of terrorism or an enemy to the nation, fear of upheaval due to inflation or a severe shortage of raw materials, hunger and so many things. But fascism and the surveillance by the state of innocent people go hand in hand. We have moved faster toward fascism than I ever thought possible. Many people thought that fascism would be painful. It isn't, at least not in the beginning.

Years ago when we lived in German speaking countries, we learned that many, many, perhaps even most people did not suffer from the fascism until it was way too late. It is like a leaking faucet. Just a slow drip for most people. But it destroys creativity. It rewards conformity. It wastes money and time and eventually it seeks victims and the drama of public punishment for innocent people.

So, if you aren't bothered, it is because you don't know what fascism looks like at the beginning. This surveillance is just the beginning. It will get a lot worse. Already, Obama is punishing more whistleblowers than previous presidents. It is partly the problem that people are not happy with what is going on in the government and thus less loyal. But it is also that a lot more really shockingly awful, undemocratic things are going on in the government, so there is more to reveal and more that is really reprehensible to bring to the public. That is why we have an increase in the numbers and frequencies of whistleblowers' revelations.

[MrMickeysMom]

52. Because he didn't "deliberately" interfere with it...

He should be thanked by the American people (especially those who write things like you just did) not up to snuff on this subject.

I suggest you see Plame's view linked in post #21...

[treestar]

53. +1

Geez, the people around here.

[Recursion]

45. We have people's hair on fire about a public training manual on security. The shark is jumped

I don't know what else to say.