Inkblot punditry

I’m going to make a simple observation about the Snowden affair which shouldn’t be necessary, but unfortunately is. There’s a tendency–often a reality–by folks on both side of the debate to treat Snowden as an inkblot or tableau blanc. 

If, on the one hand, you support the counterterrorist policies of the Bush administration, as well as their continuation and escalation under Obama, then you tend to automatically view Snowden as a traitor. If, on the other hand, you oppose the counterterrorist policies of the Bush administration, as well as their continuation and escalation under Obama, then you tend to automatically view Snowden as a hero, whistleblower, or patriot. Both sides are apt to project their own motivations and policy preferences onto Snowden.

This, in turn, results in blind spots on both sides of the debate. On the one hand, we have folks like Karl Rove who say Snowden didn’t tell us anything that wasn’t already public knowledge. Yet Rove also says Snowden should be prosecuted for jeopardizing the national security. Well, it’s hard to see how both claims can be true.

On the other hand, you have folks like Ron Paul who rush out with sympathetic defenses of Snowden. Paul assured us that Snowden is not a defector. But that’s clearly premature. It’s quite possible that Snowden will defect. Paul’s solidarity is shortsighted and foolhardy.

Likewise, there’s a distinction between what Snowden initially did, in publicizing NSA programs, and what he’s been doing since then (or threatens to do), where he’s feeding China information about US counterespionage. Even if you thought his initial revelations were a public service, we must also judge him by the totality of his conduct. In my opinion, the more interviews he gives, the more treacherous and morally confused he comes off.  

It’s important to practice a certain detachment, by distinguishing between his actions, his motivations, and our own positions.