Plum Crazy

I find that much political discussion in this country shows a poor understanding of actual political and economic movements. Take for example the frequency with which people refer to liberals as socialists and/or communists. This is demonstrably false. There have been no widespread calls by mainstream liberals or Democrats to collectivize our industries. What most people are referring to when they cry socialism or communism are welfare programs or progressive tax schemes. A welfare system is not, in and of itself, socialism or communism. It can be one component of those two systems, but by itself does not constitute either. A progressive tax system is also not socialism or communism. It is redistribution, but redistribution is only one component of those systems, and not even the most important one. The primary component of socialism and communism, what differentiates them from other economic models, is collective ownership of the means of production. In a communist model, it is the government that acts as the collective. In a socialist model, the collectives can be made up of private citizens. Thus a kibbutz is socialist, not communist.

Neither is corporate favoritism, a frequent accusation made, not unfairly, against Republicans, fascism. In a fascist country, both corporations and individuals are subordinate to the State, and the State is greater than the sum of its parts. Of course, neither is corporate favoritism truly a free market system, which Republicans like to fancy themselves the guardians of.

Incidentally, even comparing socialism or communism to fascism is faulty. Socialism and communism are economic systems. Fascism is a political system. You could theoretically have a fascist socialist state. In fact, Nazi Germany was originally conceived as such a state, although that did not occur in reality. You could also have a fascist capitalist state (the reality of Nazi Germany) or a democratic socialist one.

TIA, however, does fit the fascist bill. It subordinates the rights of citizens to the State. According to the doctrine of fascism, it is the State that organizes the nation; the State that provides individuals with their liberties. It limits so-called "useless" or "harmful" liberties. The determination of what those types of liberties are is the sole province of the State. Individuals have no say in that. Our private information, which was previously safeguarded from the government, is now to be stored and analyzed by it as it sees fit. This contradicts the Fourth Amendment, and it occurred without any further amendment to the Constitution. The State determined that our right to our information was harmful to us without any national debate on the subject. We can only hope that the courts will overturn this.

This country was founded on the precise opposite principle of fascism - the State is subordinate to the rights of the people, and the rights of the people exist independent of the State. The Declaration of Independence outright states as much, and the Constitution was designed to protect that. There is always the balancing act of society against the rights of the individual. But ostensibly the government is supposed to prove that the overall benefit is worth the loss of individual rights. Where has this case been made with respect to TIA? In what way does it act as a net enhancement to the lives of individuals as part of society? Does it make us safer? I don't see how it does. The government certainly did not make its case that it does.

What disturbs me most, though, is that the American public seems only too willing to allow the State to make the determination of which rights are harmful to us. All too frequently I have been discussing TIA with a friend and been asked "What is your plan to protect us?" My response is always "What makes you think that TIA will protect us?" The mere fact that the government has said that it will without any real explanation is sufficient for many Americans. Yet when I challenge them to explain to me precisely how the government storing data on what you bought at the grocery store will protect us, they are at a loss to do so. The government having the raw data itself does not protect us. The government first must determine which patterns to search for and data mine for those patterns. I don't know about anyone else, but I'm not particularly sanguine that the government knows what patterns to search for.

Assuming, for the moment though, that TIA really does put the goverment in the position to protect us better, there is still the unanswered question of whether it is more harmful to cede that power to the government than to live with an increased risk of attack. There is no doubt that a totalitarian regime would afford greater protection against terrorism. Who among us really believes that trade-off would be worth it? Now, TIA does not put us in a totalitarian regime. It does, however, put us one step closer. How many steps do we allow for the sake of being "secure?" And even if you trust the current administration with that power, who is to say that we can trust the next one? Or the one after that? Unfortunately, it is much harder to take back a right that you have given up than not to give it up in the first place. I fear that is a lesson we will learn to our great chagrin.