The Disconcerting Disconnect: 63% of Americans Believe that NSA is Lying About Data Collection Yet 50% Still Approve of the Program

by Gerard Emershaw  

  
According to a Pew Research Center poll released on July 26, 2013, 56% of Americans believe that the courts have not provided adequate limits on what is collected by the NSA. In addition, 70% of those surveyed believe that the government is using the data collected by the NSA for purposes other than anti-terror. Even more interesting is that 63% of those surveyed believe that the government has been lying about the NSA collecting only metadata and believe that the NSA is in fact collecting what is being said in phone calls and e-mails. However, the most interesting result from the Pew poll on the NSA is that 27% of those surveyed believe that the government has specifically listened to their phone calls or read their e-mails.

Overall, 47% of Americans believe that government anti-terror policies have gone too far in restricting civil liberties while 35% believe that government anti-terror policies have not gone far enough to protect the country. This marks a major change from recent American attitudes on this issue. In 2010, 58% of Americans surveyed in a similar Pew Research poll said that government anti-terror policies had not gone far enough to protect the country while only 27% said that these policies went too far in restricting civil liberties. 

Statists and die hard Obama apologists are likely to say that all this simply means that Tea Party blowhards and tin foil hat wearing paranoids are scaring many Americans with disinformation. Civil libertarians are likely to say that this poll data indicates that many Americans are waking up and realizing the prescience of Senator Frank Church's 1975 warning about the NSA:

"Th[e National Security Agency's] capability at any time could be turned around on the American people, and no American would have any privacy left, such is the capability to monitor everything: telephone conversations, telegrams, it doesn’t matter. There would be no place to hide. [If a dictator ever took over, the N.S.A.] could enable it to impose total tyranny, and there would be no way to fight back."

Despite all this, half of those surveyed still voiced support for the NSA surveillance program while only 44% indicated disapproval. Why the disconnect? If so many believe that the NSA is lying and so many believe that the courts are not doing enough to protect Americans from the NSA, then how can half support the NSA data collection program?

This apparent disconnect begins to make more sense when we examine approval/disapproval of the NSA data collection program among members of the two political parties. Among Republicans, 44% approve and 50% disapprove. Among Independents, 47% approve and 48% disapprove. Among Democrats, 57% approve and 36% disapprove.

Do you see what is going on here? If you are a staunch supporter of the GOP, don't bash Democrats just yet. In a 2006 Pew Research Poll conducted on American attitudes toward the Bush warrantless wiretap program, 75% of Republicans approved while only 37% of Democrats approved.

Now it all begins to make sense. It also all begins to be even more sickening. What Democrats and Republicans both seem to agree on concerning unconstitutional violations of the Fourth Amendment by the NSA is that such dastardly actions are perfectly fine as long as their party's candidate is sitting in the Oval Office. In essence, for far too many Americans, fidelity to the Constitution does not matter as much as whether the commander-in-chief is a donkey or an elephant. For these citizens, politics is akin to sports. For the Yankees fan, when a Red Sox player steals signs from the Yankees catcher, he is a dirty cheater. However, for that same fan, when a Yankees player steals signs from the Red Sox catcher, he is playing heads up baseball. But the machinations of politicians and security agencies are not the same as the antics of professional athletes. Far more is at stake. For most of us, the outcome of a sporting event has little effect on our lives. We cheer or groan when the game is over and then move on. However, the malfeasance of security agencies like the NSA has profound effects on our privacy, our rights, and our freedom. 

When rabid partisanship becomes more important than Constitutional principles and natural rights, then the nation has devolved into a system of tyranny of the majority. When this happens, the nation has transformed into a democratic banana republic. When a party is in power, it can oppress its opponents to its heart's content. While members of the minority party may not like this, they just have to grin and bear it until the next election. When their party regains control of the White House, then it's pay back time!

But is this the kind of country we want? Is this variety of political moral relativism a good thing? Isn't the moral rightness or wrongness of an action independent of whether the actor is a donkey or an elephant? Isn't the Constitution and the natural rights that it upholds more important than which party's candidate is living at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue? The danger created by the widespread worship of political parties is one which threatens every American.

Congressman Jose Serrano on Chavez: Democracy vs. Natural Rights

Congressman Jose Serrano – who represents the South Bronx – is one of the most Progressive members of Congress. Upon the death of Venezuelan strongman Hugo Chavez, Congressman Serrano tweeted: “Hugo Chavez was a leader that understood the needs of the poor. He was committed to empowering the powerless. R.I.P. Mr. President.” Congressman Serrano later released a formal statement about Chavez’s death.

Describing his meeting with Hugo Chavez in 2005, Congressman Serrano says:

His focus on the issues faced by the poor and disenfranchised in his country made him a truly revolutionary leader in the history of Latin America. He understood that after 400 years on the outside of the established power structure looking in, it was time that the poor had a chance at seeing their problems and issues addressed. His core belief was in the dignity and common humanity of all people in Venezuela and in the world.

Congressman Serrano goes on to stress that Hugo Chavez was democratically elected:

Though President Chavez was accused of many things, it is important to remember that he was democratically-elected many times in elections that were declared free and fair by international monitors. Even today, people in North America seem unable to accept that Venezuelans had taken our admonitions to have democracy to heart and elected the leader of their choice. President Chavez carried out the programs that his constituents wanted enacted, and won reelection.

Here, Congressman Serrano is highlighting the common belief of many progressive collectivists. Democracy is all that matters. Like many supporters of President Obama, Congressman Serrano believes that winning an election gives a President a mandate to do whatever he wants. Natural rights be damned! President Chavez was democratically elected, so according to Congressman Serrano, there is no problem with Chavez violating the natural right to property by nationalizing industries. There is no problem with Chavez violating the right to liberty by shutting down the privately controlled opposition media.

According to Human Rights Watch, Hugo Chavez’s weakening of the system of checks and balances in Venezuelan government contributed to “a precarious human rights situation.” Chavez purged opponents from Venezuelan courts and oversaw a legislature which passed enabling legislation that allowed him to determine what actions would be criminalized and what the penalties for those crimes would be. In addition, Chavez often targeted his opponents by targeting them with criminal prosecution. No friend of human rights, Chavez also attacked many human rights organizations in Venezuela by filing charges against them for treason for receiving funding by foreign donors. Chavez also proved to be no friend to organized labor, not allowing unions not certified by the government to engage in collective bargaining.

According to Congressman Serrano, Hugo Chavez was a man of the people who dedicated this life to uplifting the poor and providing them with dignity:

President Chavez was a controversial leader. But at his core he was a man who came from very little and used his unique talents and gifts to try to lift up the people and the communities that reflected his impoverished roots. He believed that the government of the country should be used to empower the masses, not the few. He understood democracy and basic human desires for a dignified life.  

In other words, being a dictator is fine as long as one is a benevolent dictator when it comes to the downtrodden. Might makes right. This underscores the tension between democratic ideals and Constitutional principles in the United States and around the world. For those like Congressman Serrano, there is no problem when it comes to tyranny of the majority. If the majority of the electorate supports a leader who wishes to violate the natural rights of the people, then so much the better.

It is perhaps no coincidence that Congressman Serrano supports the notion of the American President becoming a dictator like Chavez. In January, he introduced H.J. Res 15 – a bill that proposes to abolish the Twenty-Second Amendment and allow American Presidents to potentially be Commander-in-Chief for life. At least provided that they are continually re-elected like Chavez was.

Democracy can be a blessing, but without a Constitution to defend natural rights against the tyranny of the majority, democracy becomes a curse.