Historians often focus on the constant struggle between liberty and order, or whatever synonyms they may use. Short of the utmost fringes of political ideology, no serious claims are made otherwise; how much of one is worth the other, surely, is up for debate, but the trade-off is unavoidable.
Classically, and especially since the French Revolution, conservatives have favored order and liberals have favored liberty; America hasn’t followed suit exactly, and now conservative libertarians disagree with right-wing defense hawks while ACLU Democrats oppose liberal technocrats. Our left-right axis insufficiently explains opinion on government surveillance because the issue doesn’t fall within the context of our economic ideologies, social viewpoints, or any other traditional spectrum. Instead, this is about trusting the government.
As someone who believes in democracy, republicanism and representative government—all terms descriptive of America’s political system—I believe our government has our interests at heart. America’s checks and balances, while not perfect, keep power from conspiring against us; it’s rather absurd to think that our two-party, three-branch, regularly elected government risks tyranny. Without this basic faith, plenty of pet issues on both sides (e.g., support for gun control or military spending) would become untenable. Instead of gut reactions, we need to judge these issues as typical cost-benefit analyses, and the PATRIOT Act’s surveillance programs are rather clearly worthwhile once judged rationally.
We live within perhaps the most constantly dangerous time ever—with, of course, the most advanced weapons ever made. Never before have incredibly deadly bombs been so easily makeable by private citizens, as anyone close to the Boston Marathon sadly knows all too well. And, as HBO commentator Bill Maher pointed out, we’ve yet to see the worst kind of terrorist attack—a nuclear one. Lives are continually at danger, so long as people are interested in harming others, and this danger is not a minor one.
Partial safety from these incredible dangers is the “benefit” of surveillance programs. Gen. Keith Alexander, National Security Agency director, testified that the PRISM surveillance program has prevented “dozens of terrorist events,” including an attempted New York City subway bombing (later, when pushed for a more specific number, Alexander said 50). Opponents of the program have claimed that most of these were discovered by more traditional methods, but please research further: while PRISM didn’t discover some—but by no means all—of those potential attacks, PRISM played a vital role in preventing every single one of them. While it’s likely that some of those threats could have been discovered and prevented without PRISM, it’s incredibly unlikely that all of them could have been. Selective surveillance serves as another national security tool that helps keep us safe, and has saved a quite significant number of lives.
What, then, is the cost? Obviously, people like privacy, but we’re really not giving away much. All this surveillance comes from metadata already held by private companies, regularly sold to third parties; that’s how the ads on the side of the page get tailored to your interests. Numerous billion-dollar companies (e.g., Axicom) collect incredible amounts of consumer information and sell to anyone willing to pay their price, from political campaigns to Walmart. The only revelation has been the collection of this metadata by NSA; as explained above, our entire society rests on some reasonable trust of government. If one really wants to take issue with PRISM joining many other groups in data collection, the issue actually raised is with who (i.e., the government) does so. That same logic rests on anarchist principles and leads to many more pressing conclusions than the current debate.
The only new power the government has, and the real cost of the surveillance, is the potential to wiretap phones. To do this, of course, NSA has to go to a federal judge and obtain a warrant. Opponents point to FISA’s low denial rate—5 over the past 10 years—but FISA’s only issued 33,000 warrant requests since it’s creation in 1978, many of which were from the FBI. That’s less than a thousand requests per year, meaning the actual monitoring via the NSA is pretty limited, and not related to PRISM; these are the same wiretaps we’ve known about since the PATRIOT Act was passed in a sweeping bipartisan fashion. Is it worth letting the government listen in on the phone calls of suspected terrorists to prevent terrorist attacks? I’d say so.
The NSA surveillance is both limited and effective, and there’s a reason that both of Congress’ Intelligence Committees support the programs that they’ve been regularly briefed on. Nothing is ever perfect, and we’ve got to make choices. Some people oppose the PATRIOT Act because they value liberty much more than order, and that’s their prerogative; however, as a country we don’t, and we elected representatives that have repeatedly confirmed that. For all the complaints about PRISM, from whether it’s legal (it is; check Smith v. Maryland) to whether it should be more transparent (which would let terrorists avoid its detection), there’s the unwavering fact that it protects Americans. Lincoln shifted American political thought towards the progressive ideal that government power is needed to protect freedom, and this is an ideal example. Without safety, our rights won’t mean much.
© 2024 Harvard Political Review. All rights reserved.