I should point out that the latter link from Jacobin is a response to several other articles responding to the article in the New Republic, which makes it a little hard to read without the context of at least some of those articles.
Ackerman, in Jacobin, said,
There’s an argument to be made that “now is not the time” – that political critique of these whistleblowers could be harmful or misused at a moment when they’re under relentless pressure from the secret state and its apologists. That is an argument I respect, although it’s not the argument Frase is making.
Pretty much every discussion of Snowden I’ve encountered is centered on his whistleblowing; people who support the present trend towards a police state argue that Snowden’s whistleblowing was wrong, and everyone else thinks it was right. The conversation usually then moves on to what we should do about it. Snowden feels that the NSA serves a valuable role but should be reformed and constrained; while this gets pointed out, I’ve not heard anyone argue that we’re obligated to accede to Snowden’s opinion just because it’s Snowden’s. And if his other political views come up at all, it’s just as a curiosity.
What does worry me about the affects of Snowden’s whistleblowing is that it appears as the heroic act of a single individual, and that’s encouraged the heroic fantasies of a certain technophilic wing of the radical left, who are all excited about going underground and encrypting everything. The trouble is, you can’t organize a movement while underground, and we urgently need an organized political movement to effect real change. Individual heroic acts are invaluable, but they’re not enough in themselves.
Crenquis; You make nice literate posts & I understand what you’re saying –
But Nobel Prizes are not a Zero-Sum sort of thing - you know – not necessary to take one away to give to another. Of course I understand your meaning…Snowden deserves a Nobel, Obama, by your reckoning, less so.
Well, I’m not so sure our Prezzy does not deserve a N. Prize, or deserves the one he’s gained to be revoked…look at others granted Nobels…the Good, the Bad & the Ugly & Kissinger.
Brainspore – I’m not so sure ‘Commander in Chief’ – a ceremonial, elected title (yes, yes, often not so ceremonial) – means as much as applied to the President, as much as it does to a High-Ranking Military Commander with the over-sized hat, outsized number of badges on his chest, stars on his shoulders, logged years of military command, the common ancestral ties and the all the rest.
I’m not so sure ‘Commander in Chief’ – a ceremonial, elected title (yes, yes, often not so ceremonial) – means as much as applied to the President, as much as it does to a High-Ranking Military Commander with the over-sized hat, outsized number of badges on his chest, stars on his shoulders, logged years of military command, the common ancestral ties and the all the rest.
Mr. Snowden took a lot on his own shoulders to awaken the American and World public. The POTUS has only sought to rob America of its integrity, has caused horrendous division and has become more spastic with every speech. He does not deserve an award of any kind, only a prison term or execution for the treason.
It’s been mentioned sort of obliquely above, but being “nominated” for the Nobel Peace Prize carries with it about as much inherent prestige as being entered in a raffle. The informational content of this article boils down to “there are at least two people in the world who feel strongly enough about what they believe Snowden represents to make the unverifiable claim that they have filled out a form on his behalf.”
Think of a political figure you loathe from the last century. Stalin, Cheney, Botha, McCarthy, Pol Pot, Nader, Chamberlain, Thatcher, Trotsky, He Whose Name Invokes Godwin–it doesn’t matter what you hate, what you hate has been “nominated” for the Nobel Peace Prize, and most likely that nomination has been voluntarily publicized by people with ulterior motives in doing so (apart from advancing their “nominee’s” case).
Obviously we’re a long way from being done talking about Edward Snowden. My personal feelings aside, I admit I have no idea whether the consensus on him is going to swing towards “hero” or “goat.” But if he tried a new kind of jam on his toast this morning, he’s already done something more impressive than receiving this “nomination.”
If you follow Greenwald and him you’ll find they’re more libertarian than civil libertarian, which is why you don’t hear that much about the private companies that collude with government(s). These guys don’t exist in a vacuum. I would simply say they’re on the right side of this issue, much in the way that Ron Paul is right once a day on things… I would rather see somebody like Manning honored instead. I personally don’t find Snowden to be that admirable.
See “abby sapp’s” comment above if you want to look into the dark side of Snowden worship.
See Greenwald’s comment in this blog’s thread in direct response to that all too common charge:
This is one of those critiques that genuinely baffles me. I devoted two years of my life to trying to defeat retroactive immunity for US telecoms. I was one of the earliest and most vocal defenders of Occupy Wall Street. I wrote an entire book in 2011 which had – as one of its main arguments – that Wall Street executives should have been prosecuted for the systematic fraud that precipitated the 2008 crises. I’ve written endlessly on the toxic influence of corporate lobbying on government policy.
And many of the stories we’ve reported over the last seven months were all about corporate malfeasance in the surveillance state, including PRISM, Microsoft, Facebook and others.
It’s true that I’ve focused more on government abuses than private-sector ones, but that’s just a matter of focus: that’s true of most civil libertarians by definition (look, for instance, at the ACLU). But I’ve done a lot of work – a lot – aimed at corporations as well.
What the hell does that mean and why, why of all the mobile creatures on earth (sentience not being a qualifier) and definitely including the bloodsucking ones, would you choose Trump for anything other than “A person who should be chained to pole of razor blades, coated in human feces, and fired, point blank, into a 12 foot thick wall of 20,000 psi concrete”? Also, if I suggested that approximately 100 people should be equipped with sledgehammers to finish the job, would that be too much? I’ll answer my own question: Not in my world. Whee!!
Thanks. I have been passed on information that two yoga teachers - both great people and both very deserving of some accolades - have been nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize and while I think they are great people, neither has really done anything to make armies stand down. I am like, how do you submit someone for the prize? Go to the Nobel website, type in someone’s name and hit Submit?
I’d read those C.T. comments already, I especially like when G.G. later states that Occupy and The Tea Party were birthed from outrage over the same issues… Good stuff.
Having said that, much respect for G.G. for engaging with critics on C.T.
Personally I find myself identifying with this point of view a bit more:
Agreed, good to see G.G. there. It’s a long thread, and I don’t know how much of it you read of course, but personally, I find myself identifying more with Corey Robin’s response to the kind of thinking expressed in the comment that you linked to:
I really don’t think the answer is to bang on the good work people are doing critiquing the surveillance state or the state in its repressive capacity or to tar that work with the brush of libertarianism. I think the answer is for the rest of us to try and extent their analysis to the private sector. And to distinguish between repressive state action and those actions and achievements of the state that we would like to defend and extend.
I also can’t find fault with G.G.'s direct response to the comment you linked to:
If you say that people should only work with the Ideologically Pure, that’s fine. I don’t agree – I think that’s incredibly self-indulgent – but that’s at least a cogent position. But do you apply it consistently? Is it OK to work with Democrats (like Barack Obama) on an issue-by-issue basis even as they drone-kill children, spy on everyone indiscriminately, prop up the world’s worst dictators, advocate trade agreements that degrade the environment and the poor, and engineere the Wall Street bailout while doing little to nothing for people in foreclosures?
This guilt by association method – he worked with someone Impure on an issue and now is infected with that impurity! – is just childish. But worse, it’s rarely applied consistently. It’s usually just a means to enforce partisan loyalty: somehow, it’s OK to work with Bad Democrats, just not with anyone else.
Nope, those Democrats should be named and shamed as well. I find GG’s response to be in the realm of “the lady doth protest too much…”. All critics are saying is: to get to know these people and what drives them (ideologically) a little better before you deify them. That is completely fair. it’s their problem that they may be embarrassed about having a light shone on it. Of course that’s often the difference between progressives and conservatives: Progressives will go after people (supposedly) on their own side, while conservatives “circle the wagons”. Fucking principles…
Even worse, much, much worse, he is a life-long pothead & a child & grandchild of closet potheads and Soviet-Reds. That his family has gotten away with this for many decades without swift, decisive & brutal intervention by the the various Local, State & Federal Governments is searing, graphic proof that The Man of these United States is indeed sick…is ill.
Actually, I’ve learned that not technically anyone can nominate someone. But it’s pretty damn close. For example, “professors of social sciences, history, philosophy, law and theology,” a group of people that includes me, make the cut. I take the Groucho Marx opinion of clubs that would have me.
Which is not to say I think the concept, or even necessarily the execution, of the NPP is bad. I’d only be worried if they actually needed those nominations from random yahoos out in the world to come up with a decent short list.
