The System is Failing
While reading slashdot I stumbled onto this particularly insightful comment by a reader responding to the story of the Ohio man that was unlawfully arrested after refusing to provide ID to an officer. It summarizines many of my thoughts about the dangerous mentality of “if you have nothing to hide…” and “just do what you’re told…”
If the system worked correctly, then either (a) freedoms would gradually increase over time, or (b) the balance of state power vs. personal freedoms would remain roughly steady over time. Because the size and power of the USA government have each continued to increase over time (as measured by several factors, such as: number of laws on the books, degree of privacy of the average citizen, size of the government in terms of percentage of GDP, degree of power wielded by the executive branch today compared to just ten years ago, etc), I would judge that the system is not working as intended by its founders.
It is failing, but because it’s failing gradually and has taken several lifetimes to get this way, each generation grows up used to “the way things are” (Social Security vote-buying, drug asset forfeiture laws that don’t require an arrest or for charges to be brought, warrentless domestic surveillance) and may lament the freedoms lost but do not see the inevitability of the police state. B
Because of the difficulty of a massive takeover and the resistence and uprisings it would cause, freedom is almost never taken away all at once. Instead, it’s eroded gradually, little bit by little tiny bit (always “for the children”, “for your safety”, “to stop terrorists”, “to fight [some] drugs”), which suits the statists because it is never given back, making the resulting police state inevitable.
What you’re really dealing with here is an almost religious, always unstated belief that the artificial construct of the nation, as personified by state power, is like a massive all-powerful organism and the individuals of which it is composed are akin to cells in the body in the sense that any one of them is expendable and insignificant and they only matter in large numbers. This mentality has become deeply established in the USA, which is why in the news, no crime ever happens to a person - it happens to a Black person, or a White person, or an Asian person, or a woman, or a senior citizen, etc because the group identity has become more significant than the individual identity. This is useful for the goal of the statists, since each group has perceived collective interests in large enough numbers to influence the politics of the State. This is how you dehumanize people and turn them into a label, because it’s no longer the mind, body, and soul of an individual who has hopes and dreams and feels pain like you do but just another faceless organization that can only be understood as an abstraction.
Of course you also need to have a war of some kind going on to keep the public in a fearful state, since this is the best way to discourage rational thought and promote a groupthink “pack animal” situation. War on poverty, war on (some) drugs, war on crime, war on terror, war on obesity, etc. are how you get around that pesky Bill of Rights. For example, consider the 4th Amendment, which states:
“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”
Because of the War on (some) Drugs, it is now considered acceptable for the police to seize property without bothering to arrest anyone or charge them with any crime (reference [isil.org]). Thanks to the War on Terror, it is now considered acceptable for the feds to intercept communications and execute wiretaps without all that hassle of demonstrating probable cause and obtaining a warrant. Both of these practices, along with the entire idea of fighting an undeclared “war” against a battle tactic (terrorism is a particularly despicable form of guerilla warfare), would have been considered absolutely absurd things that would never happen here 100 years ago, but because of the gradual nature of the erosion of freedom this is where we find ourselves.
What the “Fairness Doctrine” will do for the First Amendment I leave as an exercise for the reader.
Historically, this is really nothing new. The only thing unusual about the USA is the extremely strong “can’t happen here, I’m sure our rulers’ intentions are pure” mentality that will make the police state a big surprise for many people when it comes. In Germany, Russia, Italy, and anywhere that a modern police state has arisen, this has been the pattern: subordinate the individual to the group, establish a national enemy (did the world’s most powerful nation catch Osama yet?), create a climate of general fear and uncertainty, and denounce the pacifists for their lack of patriotism (see this [thinkexist.com]). By this pattern, power is abused and rights are gradually taken away by people who sincerely believe in what they are doing, because only by invoking some idea of “the greater good” (as judged by them, of course) can such injustices be excused. So yes, I do believe our system is failing, even though we have already exceeded the life expectancy of a constitutional republic by about fifty years.
On a superficial level this argument sounds good, it correctly dissects many of the current problems in our nation. Yet the conclusions of the argument just completely ignores history. I mean just look at recent U.S. history: from the writing of our Constitution, to the freeing of slaves, women suffrage, civil rights, and everything in between. History shows the exact opposite pattern he claims exists. Although periods of backsliding do happen, history consistently shows the ship always seems to right itself and plows forward not backward.
It is sad. I agree with much of what is said here. However tying this argument up with some dystopian “1984” future is absorb. Ironically enough, the poster of this comment is doing the exact same thing he claims to hate. He is using fear; but inside of trying to take away our freedoms, he is trying to do the exact opposite.
But, I ask if the facts are bad enough. Why can’t we just be honest with ourselves and history.