Why Have So Many Liberals Been Silent About NSA Spying? - GuardianUK

[WillyT]

Why have so many liberals been silent about NSA spying?
It's not about Obama or party loyalty. It's about the reality that public opinion on privacy versus security can change quickly
Ana Marie Cox - theguardian.com
Friday 2 August 2013 08.15 ED

<snip>

Why hasn't the left been able to rally support around opposition to domestic spying?

Tea Party candidates on the right have been able to generate excitement among GOP base voters with their calls to end the National Security Agency's domestic spying program. Senator Rand Paul appears to have staked his entire potential presidential campaign on a brash defense of personal privacy (except when it comes to abortion). Libertarian-leaning Republicans in the House have been unapologetic in their criticism of the program, their own energy magnified by near-unanimous support from conservative talk radio and bloggers.

Those advocates of civil liberties (some of them quite new to the cause) have a convenient explanation for why Democrats have been less vocal and slower to criticize the collection of metadata from everyday American citizens: slavish devotion to President Obama, whatever policies he might champion.

This is an easy argument to make – and it goes both ways. Polling among Democratic and Republican voters shows a mirror-image of approval for Obama's use of the tactic to Bush's use of it. Since 2002, the number of Democrats who approved monitoring online activities has increased 12 points; among Republicans it has decreased 13 points. Since 2006, the number of Republicans who say the government should prioritize privacy over hunting terrorists has risen 22 points; Democrats who say the government should prioritize preventing terrorism over privacy has gone up 18 points.

The neatness of these changes in position is almost disturbing. It suggests that advocacy for civil liberties is a zero-sum game: there's only so much libertarianism to be had at any given historical moment, there's a ceiling on Americans' ability to believe that the right to privacy is paramount. Indeed, as you might suspect from the numbers above, polling among all Americans on the balance of national security to privacy has neatly flipped as well. The percentage of voters that worry that the US will go "too far" in violating privacy rights in pursuit of terrorists versus "not going far enough" is now 56% percent versus 36%. In 2001, after the 9/11 attacks, it was 31% versus 55%.

It's these numbers, rather than the occupant of the White House, that explains Democrats' reluctance to move...

<snip>

More: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/02/nsa-spying-liberals-presidential-candidates-silent

[Skittles]

1. with many DUers it is DEFINITLEY the occupant of the White House

I might add that after 9-11, those of us who kept thinking rationally did NOT get on board with Dubya and his insane agenda

[sabrina 1]

2. Yes, it appears to be. When the occupant of the WH changes his mind and returns to the

position he took during his campaigns, they will do an about turn.

This is why extreme partisan is so damaging to this country. The Rulers of the Country depend on it to keep things going their way.

More of a threat than any terrorist.

[Skittles]

10. I am slowly putting them on Ignore

and as I envisioned, DU is returning back to the way it used to be - when I could read rational responses (YES BOTH PRO AND CON!!!) minus the occasional five year old screaming and stamping his feet

[City Lights]

5. Yes, this is true. nt

[Solly Mack]

15. We for damn sure didn't.

I wasn't on board, behind, or standing with Bush on September 11, 2001 either.

[rug]

3. Because Snowden's girlfriend was a pole dancer.

And Russia is evil.

I think I've forgotten some.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

4. Liberals are worn out after years of complaining

The Republicans are using this as a leverage for 2014

[Skittles]

11. republicans march in lockstep

true Democrats DO NOT

[Vanje]

6. Those aren't Liberals.

Those are rigid *right of center partisans.

*They used to call them Reagan Democrats.

[OutNow]

7. Well My Representative Has Not Been Silent

Pete DeFazio, (D. Oregon) has been vocal about his support for the Amash amendment to curtail NSA spying. I congratulate him for his consistent support for civil liberties and the Constitution. If course Pete voted against the Patriot Act so I expected his support for the Amash amendment. Way to go Pete!

[spin]

8. They will not be as silent when the Republican's regain control of the White House ...

if they ever do.

Unfortunately it may be too late then.

[Skittles]

12. that makes them HYPOCRITES

sickening

[spin]

19. Sadly true. (n/t)

[wandy]

9. Ok, let's start here.......

I am most defiantly not an apologist.
Our KGB, errr I mean NSA needs it's wings clipped, big time. Fast, now if possible.
That being said. Again.

I have little respect for the Guardian.
Less for Glenn Greenwald.
This is starting to smell.

Our Teapublican friends are a lot more into this spying crap than anyone here.
See something say something? Maybe some Teabagger can make themselves a hero?

Somewhere Karl Rove is laughing his ass off at us.

[Thinkingabout]

13. Maybe it is true most liberals are not libertarian leaning. When so much crazy statements are made

By libertarians I don't think liberals are inclined to be libertarian.

[ConcernedCanuk]

14. Maybe they are just plain scared of the NSA?

.
.
.

I don't doubt for one second that vocalists about the NSA in a negative way will get the benefit of the full capabilities of the NSA.

ESPECIALLY if they are part of the government that has the power to disband them. (not a bad idea IMO)

It's quite possible many do not want to stick their necks out and have every move they and their family and friends make monitored, and dig up their pasts.

Most of us are not, and were not Saints.

There's almost always something we don't want disclosed.

I know it will surprise you all,

Our Police Forces have been known to falsify/hide evidence.

Why not the NSA?

naaaaaaaaaaaaw

They wouldn't do that . . . .

(right)

CC

[David Krout]

16. A democrat is President

That simple.

[WillyT]

17. True...

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

18. Hypocrisy is the tribute vice pays to virtue

We can witness it right here on DU with a few.

They treat politics like baseball, and have cheapened it so no debate is aloud... like a bunch of thugs in a bar.