Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

JDPriestly

(57,936 posts)
48. How can anyone who contributes to corrupting democracy be viewed as a hero?
Mon Jun 24, 2013, 02:23 AM
Jun 2013

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.

Snowden DU Cognitive Dissonance Syndrome [View all] NoodleyAppendage Jun 2013 OP
I'd still hate him if he were skewering Bush. mhatrw Jun 2013 #1
Did you hate Risen then? sabrina 1 Jun 2013 #36
Or, perhaps Edward Snowden is neither entirely heroic nor entirely treasonous. JaneyVee Jun 2013 #2
No! Pick a side! We're at war! Deep13 Jun 2013 #31
I don't have a thing against classified documents in every case treestar Jun 2013 #3
SOFA NoOneMan Jun 2013 #4
Your last point is interesting, though I suspect Snowden would still have revealed... NoodleyAppendage Jun 2013 #5
How did you feel about the leaks during the Bush administration? Did you agree that the NYT sabrina 1 Jun 2013 #37
I think there is some cognitive dissonance in place. nadinbrzezinski Jun 2013 #6
No, I the majority bashing Snowden are just as sincere as those advocating his situation still_one Jun 2013 #7
Do you honestly believe that China wasn't already aware of the US hacking? NoodleyAppendage Jun 2013 #11
That is not the point. He went to a foreign nation to reveal our secrets. hrmjustin Jun 2013 #17
"He went to a foreign nation to reveal our secrets." And your dog told you that. rhett o rick Jun 2013 #34
I think it is clear what he did. hrmjustin Jun 2013 #55
I find it interesting that you are so definite on knowing what he did and why. rhett o rick Jun 2013 #59
It is not the point, and I do not believe they were aware of Hong Kong being hacked. My main point still_one Jun 2013 #22
Not the specifics creeksneakers2 Jun 2013 #29
So you were against the leaks during the Bush years then, the ones that caused the accusation sabrina 1 Jun 2013 #38
Anyone who thinks Snowden is a hero or a villain needs to read fewer comics cthulu2016 Jun 2013 #8
Yep, totally agree NoOneMan Jun 2013 #10
I agree that who cares if he is a hero or a traitor, but his credibility does matter JaneyVee Jun 2013 #14
But the documents are not nadinbrzezinski Jun 2013 #25
You are 100 percent correct. NSA is the story morningfog Jun 2013 #15
They took a few futile shots at the documents, then changed tactics to shooting the messenger. GoneFishin Jun 2013 #19
That's me all the way ecstatic Jun 2013 #30
Post removed Post removed Jun 2013 #9
And you actually complained about being called names? treestar Jun 2013 #13
Those other names were made up bs RobertEarl Jun 2013 #18
I don't trust him. That does not mean I agree with what the government is doing. hrmjustin Jun 2013 #12
What about our leaders who swore to uphold the constitution? dkf Jun 2013 #26
I agree that they owe us something. hrmjustin Jun 2013 #27
He made a choice to put the collective above himself. Most people don't have the guts. dkf Jun 2013 #28
I respect your opinion but I disagree with it. hrmjustin Jun 2013 #33
Sadly I now trust him more than our Elected leaders. dkf Jun 2013 #50
Bingo. That's the point. Thankyou. lindysalsagal Jun 2013 #58
Forget Snowden, do you trust Ms. Plame and Mr. Wilson? nm rhett o rick Jun 2013 #35
Do I trust them? I think they were wronged by the government. hrmjustin Jun 2013 #56
Not sure that some people marions ghost Jun 2013 #16
For me the cognitive dissonance is about ... frazzled Jun 2013 #20
Good post. nt Bobbie Jo Jun 2013 #23
Thank you for mentioning TIA tavalon Jun 2013 #40
Excellent post. Summer Hathaway Jun 2013 #41
Thank you. SunSeeker Jun 2013 #44
The police crackdown on the Occupiers was pretty horrible. JDPriestly Jun 2013 #46
I agree that the romanticism is a DU thing flamingdem Jun 2013 #47
I really like your post, although I disagree with substantial portions of it. Since you mention HardTimes99 Jun 2013 #49
So you were carrying pictures of Chairman Mao? Fumesucker Jun 2013 #51
Well written BS marions ghost Jun 2013 #54
Good post. sagat Jun 2013 #57
Cognitive Dissonance has my vote... MrMickeysMom Jun 2013 #21
Thanks for this! n/t NoodleyAppendage Jun 2013 #24
I think there are several issues davidpdx Jun 2013 #32
I'm able to hold two views simultaneously, tavalon Jun 2013 #39
Well put! - nt HardTimes99 Jun 2013 #42
How could someone who is deliberately interfering with US diplomacy with Russia and China pnwmom Jun 2013 #43
How can anyone who contributes to corrupting democracy be viewed as a hero? JDPriestly Jun 2013 #48
Because he didn't "deliberately" interfere with it... MrMickeysMom Jun 2013 #52
+1 treestar Jun 2013 #53
We have people's hair on fire about a public training manual on security. The shark is jumped Recursion Jun 2013 #45
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Snowden DU Cognitive Diss...»Reply #48