National Security versus Personal Freedoms

One of the fallouts from the Snowden security breach is the conflicting interest of national security versus the potential for governmental violations of our freedoms and civil liberties. Curiously the uncrossable political fissure between Democratic and Republican parties that are omnipresent in almost every other issue that confronts the nation. In this case, the Republicans are not universally set on thwarting any actions on the part of Democrats, nor are all Democrats intent upon imposing their will upon Republicans who ubiquitously oppose them. Somehow the government's information collection programs have instantly touched an issue that goes straight to the core of individuals beliefs on both sides; and in doing so short-circuited the knee-jerk reaction to “oppose on principle” anything that our current day politicians use in responding to every other national issue, question or debate. While I am amazed that there was an issue that would actually demonstrate that our politicians possess even a small ability to think, I am not sure that it will show in the end that they can think competently.

What we have is a situation where Republicans and Democrats are staking out positions that will resonate with their core constituencies and then try and twist and contort the discussion / debate to best suit their political interests. They will allocate blame where it doesn't belong, attribute motives that didn't and doesn't exist, and they will lie to the American principally because that is what we have bred our politicians to do. You can't after all breed and train pit-bulls to be attack dogs and then expect them to be safe and docile pets.

What is less likely to happen is for our politicians to actually formulate an informed and reasoned discussion and debate about the issues involved. Instead of recognizing and admitting that these are, have been, and will always be conflicting interests and facets of our society. As with most issues, our Republican and Democratic representatives will decide what their position is, insist that they are right and tolerate no consideration of anyone else's views, and as always demonstrate no understanding or insight into how to deal with this conflict of public interests in an intelligent manner.

Many Americans will cheer one side or the other, because they have come to view politics as a sport and entertainment. Looking for a 'win' for their side and a 'loss' for the other without any perspective on what the 'win' costs them or means to the nation. If their side 'loses' then they will seek ways to reverse the 'loss' without ever having considered if the outcome resolves their basic underlying concern. The 'loss' will not go unrevenged.

To salvage victory for the American people from this gladiatorial display of political theater, the public will need to strenuously seek opportunities and outlets where the facts are presented and discussed, where the functions and processes used are understood in the context of individuals personal information and details, what purposes and objectives are intended by involved agencies, and how freedoms are either impacted or impinged upon by those processes. Additionally, these discussion should present what the values and impacts of performing the functions are against the consequences and impacts of not doing them. Lastly, proposals for how to amend or adjust the policies, laws and processes that accommodate a reasonable and prudent accommodation that best serves and protects both the public's freedoms and the public's security is required; both of which are Constitutional mandates of our society.

A follow-up article on the issues involved will be forth coming.