POL - Can a "pro-privacy" candidate win?
 

Obviously inspired by a variety of recent events and revelations (but not trying to pin the discussion to any of them specifically), I'm moved by a question.

We know that American politics is frought with metaphorical "third rails" -- issues so sensitive, that any elected official who faces any sort of electoral challenge is best advised to stay far away from them. The classic case is entitlement reform -- it's a ghastly drain on our federal budget, but if you're in elected office and start saying that it's time to rein in Social Security or even to simply index benefits or the like -- you had better prepare for a huge fight, because you'll have it coming from the organized and powerful interests who deeply oppose any such measures. So, the only efforts made on these tough issues (which many voters and even many leaders probably agree with philosophically) get relegated to the various "blue-ribbon commissions" usually comprising people who are retired, out of office, or well-intentioned private citizens -- and whose lofty visions and official reports serve to line dusty, unused bookshelves in the halls of power across this land.

Okay, I got carried away there. Back to the main point.


In this political climate, I wonder if being "pro-privacy" has basically become such an issue? I knwo there was a little scuffle about the renewal of the USA-PATRIOT Act lately, but I have to think that is an exception that perhaps proves the rule -- and the resulting "compromise" regarding that Act's provisions might serve to demonstrate just how empty the pro-privacy advocates are at this point.

But, in general, it seems to me that we currently face a two-part argument, where one side is just so much easier to articulate, and simply resonates so well with many people (trying not to cast aspersions here), that the debate has been basically obviated.

If it comes down to:

"We need to stop the terrorists." (Break for applause)

versus

"There are essential freedoms that we, as citizens, must demand from our government, and even in the pursuit of peace and protection, we muststrike an appropriate balance between blah blah blah blah..."

...we know who usually wins the day.


So... let's say that you, personally and philosophically, feel that privacy issues are important, and that the current trend is a bad one. (This might make you a tru conservative republican, or a liberal democrat, or somewhere in between -- this is not as simple as left/right or D/R)

Unless you are protected by a gerrymandered districy designed to insulate you from any real competition, or else otherwise so deeply entrenched that your being unseated is a far-fetched... can you really go public and make this an issue that you are actually attached to?

If you're running for higher office -- do you dare embrace privacy issues as part of your public stance? Could a US presidential candidate do so and be taken seriously be either party?

Has this issue basically been lost from the public debate?

I'd say that you could run on this kind of platform for a House seat, but you would need a more complete presentation to win a statewide or national campaign. Not to say it couldn't be the centerpiece of your campaign, but you'd definitely have to have other dogs to run with.

I'd participate in this discussion, but I don't want to compromise my privacy.

"Privacy" is, historically, a fairly recent concept. I don't really know the answer to your question, but this analogy you use

If it comes down to:

"We need to stop the terrorists." (Break for applause)

versus

"There are essential freedoms that we, as citizens, must demand from our government, and even in the pursuit of peace and protection, we muststrike an appropriate balance between blah blah blah blah..."

...we know who usually wins the day.

Sounds to me less about privacy and more like Creon vs. Antigone - the needs of the state vs. the needs of the individual. I share Creon's philosophy (although he applied it incorrectly).

Nope, to both questions.

Although I might amend the latter question to read "be taken seriously by the voters". (And I might amend my "no" to the first question to something like "No, you can't categorically side with privacy over all else")

And, quite handily IMO, you already supplied the reason

To catch those who live in the shadows, before they briefly step into the light where they do their harm, you must enter the shadows as well.

Also, I don't think these two things are mutually exclusive. They can and should co-exist.

"Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster."
--Friedrich Nietzsche

But a reasonable candidate obviously isn't going to say "protect privacy at all costs!" but rather try to strike some sort of middle ground, like I'm trying to imply with the extended explanation you quoted.

My point is -- has this so-called debate essentially ended, with so many people basically taking the position that Jon articulates, such that there's no room for nuanced positions here? (A side question might be whether there's a political future for nuanced positions at all)


(edited for clarity)

I think in national elections it really depends on the candidates. I'm a big believer that issues rarely decide national elections unless a candidate is just running against the stream. If Colin Powell ran on a pro-privacy platform, I would think he could do quite well. He has the military credibility and experience to justify the stance. If Howard Dean ran on a pro-privacy platform, he could do ok, but not great, IMO. He would be seen as credible because of his independent voice and opposition to the war. He would probably lose, but would at least look like a "stand-up" guy. If Hilary Clinton ran on a pro-privacy platform, people would laugh. It would just look silly and flip-floppy.

So, I've mostly dodged your question except to say, "yes, I think certain candidates could be successful running that strategy," but they are a very small group and probably have to have sterling right-wing or fiercely independent credentials.

I love political policy discussions. I am a total policy wonk, and enjoy both the philosophical and practical aspects of government.

I would rather have nails driven through my skull than run for public office.

The fact that those two statements are not mutually exclusive is testimony to the idiocy of elections, sound bites and the general public's attitude toward voting in this country.

Bzzzttt ... that's not exactly what I said, or at least that's not necessarily what I meant.

What I was getting at, or trying to, was as much about what the voters hear if a candidate said "appropriate balance" as what the "appropriate balance" should be.

As I read the question, you basically asked whether a candidate could make this a key point in their campaign and still win. My answer was no, but a decent percentage of my answer comes from my belief that there are scant few candidates who could articulate the phrase "appropriate balance" and have the voters believe that's really what they meant. It sounds too much like a soundbite (which it is and has to be from a campaigning standpoint) for swing voters to put much stock in it and leaves too much room for both disappointing your base and creating ammo for the opposition.*

Libs hear a Dem say it and worry that "he's going to sell us out"
Conservs hear a Rep say it and worry that "he's too damned soft"
Libs hear a Rep say it and accuse "he's a damned fascist"
Conservs hear a Dem say it and accuse "he's not willing to protect America"

In other words, the failure of the position isn't just about the position, it's also a matter of politics and voter perception of politicians.

It's a losing bet any way you slice it IMO.

edit to add: Upon further review, I think you really hit what I was saying better than I first thought, although not necessarily for the reasons I suspect you think I said it.

One more candidate I think that could win a presidential election based on privacy: Rudy Giuliani.

This NSA Database may prove to be an interesting point.

I think that there are three (main) things working to make the "pro-privacy" position a hard one to take:

1.) Stopping the terrorists is more important to most people than defending abstract vaules.

2.) They are only invading the privacy of the bad guys--people beleive that they, personally, have nothing to fear.

3.) People only take their news in binary sound bites. Anything subtle or presented as a choice involving more than two alternatives is rejected in favor of the easy binary.

I don't see 1 or 3 going anywhere. 2, however, has been in play for most of what the government is doing (not just with privacy, but with most everything involving the war on terror)---but has just gone away. This NSA list is the first time that each voter, personally, is having the government keep their records in a database. Now, people may still feel protected by a sense of anonymity--if the government has everyone's records, there is no way that they will be able to ever focus on mine. In that case, they will still feel personally protected.

But, possibly, a program that really does look at you, personally, is something against which the voter will react. If not, I think that I agree with you that I don't really know if this is an issue with which a politician can win.

Also, I would note that, on some level, the political branches of government have always been much more "anti-privacy" than our ideals would indicate. The judiciary--not the political branches-has been one of the main forces protecting our privacy against attempts by the government to invade it throughout history (see, e.g., the 4th Amendment). So what we may be seeing now is not politicans reacting to a new third rail. It may be a federal judiciary that has been handpicked over the last 25 years to contain members who care more about executive power than defending the rights of the individual. Maybe we've always been willing to sacrifice a little liberty for the illusion of security. It is just that now we have put judges on the bench that are allowing us to do it to ourselves.

I'm copying data over.

37% have a problem with the NSA's plan. 63% do not.

With this egregious violation of privacy/civil law not even getting a majority?

Privacy as an issue is dead.

Seems to me that if an issue doesn't impact the typical American or even a noticeable percentage of the population, it would be difficult to have it as a major platform issue. I don't see privacy violations as something that would impact most people. Even assuming my privacy is violated, in general, I'd think I would never know about it. It just feels more like an idealistic issue than a concrete one under current conditions.

Kind of answers my question I guess.

I also wonder how much non-governmental invasions of privacy also have affected people's perceptions. Hell, google probably knows more about me than Uncle Sam. Harris Teeter knows precisely what I eat (thanks to the VIC Card), etc.. And, on some level, I have freely given up that privacy in order to search faster and get 10c off mac n' cheese. And millions of people have made that choice.

So, should it suprise us when no one objects to the government doing it for an ostensibly good reason?

I guess my confusing punctuation caused you to mis-interpret my statement... I'll add a comma to try and help.

The more commas, the better, I always say ;)

Just for the heck of it (and for the amusing paradox it sort of presents), I'll mention here that I steadfastly refuse to carry any grocery or drug stores "loyalty card". The benefits simply don't outweigh the negatives to me.

We're in lockstep on this one. There is a grocery store chain in KC that takes the "loyalty card" to the extreme and I flat out refuse to shop there. About once a year, I'll be in a pickle where I need something quickly or this store is significantly more convenient than going out of my way and I'll break down and walk into the store. Almost without fail, I'll walk in and find that they want to charge me a dollar more for something I want simply because I won't carry their damn card. I storm out after stopping by the service desk and letting them know I won't shop there if they continue to treat me that way simply because I don't want to carry their card. So, yes, they consider me a nutcase.

I get the same reaction from the local CVS, but darned if it's really bothered me much ;)

You've always struck me as one overly sensitive concerning what others think about you.;)

I think for me this is classic case of the long answer being yes with an if, short answer no with a but.

In "normal" times, privacy to me of late has been a way for the two parties to play to their base. For Republicans, privacy has meant making government smaller, and for Democrats it's been about the bedroom and reprodutive rights. The "real" issue over privacy has been the domain of the third-party candidates -- Liberterians ralling against drug laws or the Constitution Party railing against, well, most things. The extremes of privacy are certainly not within the purview of the major parties, who generally nibble at the edges in the middle.

We all know the historic exception has been during times of war. Since the Alien and Sedition Acts through the Red Scare and today, the argument of sacrificing liberty for safety has always been an incredibly effective political tool. I'm not sure I know of a political candidacy that has ever effectively made privacy an issue on the other side.

Could it be done? I think it could, but not as the centerpiece of a campaign or by just any candidate.

The first problem is that we the majority doesn't recognize privacy as an issue until applying hindsight. Japanese internment made a lot of sense to a lot of people in 1942, just as the Patriot Act and anything the NSA is doing now makes sense to a lot of people. If government has gone too far in terms of privacy, it's not until after the fact that we realize it.

That said, a populist moderate with a strong military background and no-nonsense approach could aboslutely make it work. I don't think this is necessarily a Republican/Democratic issue. I think if Al Gore had been president in 2001, there's a reasonable chance we'd still have some facsimile of the Patriot Act because it's the politically expedient thing.

Assuming a level playing field, I think it's just too easy to say "Make America safe" and the other guy is soft terrorism.

The problem I see with a pro-provacy candidate is that privacy seems to be not a left/right thing, but a liberal and libertarian thing, while the moderates and conservatives seem to accept anything done to them if 'terror' is mentioned. That seems like a tough demographic to motivate together if that is your major issue.

Also, as an aside:
SS isn't really an 'entitlement', as generally people get back what they pay in, and it's also not a ghastly drain on the federal budget, as it has run a surplus for over 20 years.

Sonuvabi ... me & Biggles agree on something.

Sadly, once liberals get back in power, they will be more than happy to sell out our privacy (see the "Clipper" chip).

I stand corrected on terminology, but my essential point remains -- anyone who proposed to do anything to cut back on Social Security benefits or Medicare is in deep shit.

Any executive will try to expans his power, GOP or Dem. It's the general nature of things, which is why we have checks and balances in the government. Problems arise when, for example, the congress rubber stamps everything and the judiciary is cut out of the process at every step.

Damn. Usually I just need one of you to believe something for me to know it's wrong. This is like having a Birthday AND Christmas all in one day! :D

Bumping this in light of an NPR discussion I heard today regarding the HP scandal. Even though there may be some charges against the HP insiders for various things, the premise of the discussion is that we've begun to adapt to a culture of intrusion into spaces we used to or may have previously called private. Add that to the current congressional debates regarding various bills on the NSA, wiretapping and the like, and I wonder if this topic isn't worth a second look...

Addressing some secondary issues with my own perspective:

I think a candidate could run with a "smaller federal government, less regulation, less intrusion" main plank to his/her platform. Protecting our privacy would be one of several implications to this: as well as tax cuts, balancing the budget, eliminating pork spending, reducing Federal intrusion into public education, tax reform, etc. He may even be able to sway some libertarians and constitutionalists to his side.

A Republican presidential could probably do this and maintain some consistency of credibility (the anti-Bush republican), while it would be a tough sell for a Democrat. If a third party guy ran with this, he'd be better off running for congress than President. Third-party guys always seem to make the same mistake--wasting their supporters' money by going for the big enchilada. Better to start small, build a grass roots support, establish your party by landing several small elections over time than trying to upset the establishment all at once.

I, personally, would be first in line to join a third party that campaigned in achievable elections and had at the center a "less federal government--put it back in the constitutional bounds and get it out of my life" platform.

That really struck a cord with me. The philosopher in me sees a progression from who our society has treated its public figures and how that treatment has extended to less public figures. For example, if we take a historic look at the private lives of politicians, we see that we've gone from having little to no knowledge of a candidate's private life to an era where seemingly no aspect of a politician's private life is private. Now that is starting to apply to everyone, not just public figures.

What part of our lives are truly private in today's era? Even here on this message board we're not as annonymous as we would probably like to think. I clearly think that rather than objective to the intrusion into our private spaces we have merely adapted or ignored it -- and in many cases are simply ignorant of it. I doubt most people give much thought to the aforementioned customer loyalty cards or credit cards and the amount of information we willingly provide other people and companies about ourselves.

I still think that intrusion in privacy this is something the majority has a hard time judging in the here and now, but is perfectly clear in hindsight.

I agree that privacy is a dead issue right now, but it won't stay that way for too long. After the first case of the government using information gained in this manner against a defendant in a non-terrorist case, it will become a much bigger issue.

I wish that were true, but I doubt it. The lines seemed to be so blurred right now- everyone seems to have chosen their side and those sides play strictly to that. If info is used against a defendant in a non-terrorist case for some other aim, one side will just try to blur that he really was a terrorist while the other will outcry but will be painted as being partisan.

SI

It strikes me that these two points might be related. We've discussed a number of times before (largely led by QS) the top down culture we seem to have developed. I think it might follow that those whose minds are made up from the beginning because of a letter or symbol beside a candidates name (on either side) may not take the time to feel which way the winds are blowing around them.

Funny, this is my perception as well, but other times I think that the reality is different. I try not to think about the sheep factor of Americans as it makes my stomach hurt.

I was wrong, and Jon was right.

Feds Warrantlessly Tracking Americans’ Credit Cards in Real Time | Threat Level | Wired.com

Scary stuff.

I have long since come to the realization that they track and log everything. I mean every single thing you do. The main limting factor is the inability to parse through this monstrous amount of information. But that will change with software innovations and as processing power increases.

That said, whether someone could run on this platform or not doesn't matter. The cat's out of the bag and there is no going back. The only question is how open the powers are with it to their citizens.

To be honest, looking way way down the road I see our civilization as we know it fundamentally changed. People will cease to care about privacy, not only from their government(which most will dissolve as they lose control of information), but from stranger to stranger. Information of all types instantly shared with everyone. Could call it a hive mind, which is where human created technology is taking us and must be where we collectively want to be.

Anyways, that's me going off on a tangent :D. I blame Wikileaks.

This is why I used my ex wife's ex husbands name for the store discount card.

IRS: We can read emails without warrant - The Hill's Hillicon Valley

Fourth Amendment we hardly knew ye!

EDIT: Hopefully some of the people who always respond that this is just for a terrorists and not for me will see where this is headed. (Seems like hatred of the IRS crosses both party lines)

I'm not convinced that voters in most districts are smart enough to make this an elevated voting issue, meaning that this cause celebre would be all the rage for a place with a lot of engaged college kids. But ordinary people ain't care. So sure, could win in a perfect storm race where privacy becomes a main voting issue.

But I'd have a hard time imagining those conditions in most races.

It's funny though, I saw a story last night on how tedious the process of keeping paperwork on gun purchases is - they are still required for everything to be submitted via paper, and then the records must be archived using non-electronic means - to protect the rights of gun owners by intentionally making it very hard to be able to track and later find gun ownership info.

I agree that people will care less and less about privacy as we get more and more used to the way things are, and as the younger generations come of age in a world where you just have less privacy. Even since this thread started, younger people are sharing more and more online, and more and more its a feature of internet products to let your friends and everyone in the world know what you're listening to, what games you're playing, etc.

I'm 34, and even I don't really give a shit anymore. I know I'm supposed to care if the government logs my email and credit card transactions, or if companies track my online habits. I guess I disagree with the practices in theory, I just don't care.

You (royal) will care when those intent on taking what you have away from you because they can now do it non-violently.

What are they going to take? Ya, if government employees used by credit card numbers to hire escorts, I would have a serious problem with that. I think most people would. Beyond that, its mostly theoretical. What do you fear the government will do with logs of your phone calls, or Google with its tracking of your internet habits? I called my sister and mother this morning. I guess in theory I'd rather that not be logged in a super-government anti-terrorism database, but I'm not going to take up arms any time soon to stop them. I fear government incompetence and corruption and waste. But not its capacity for the "evil" it can carry out with my emails and phone logs, which is really just theoretical. I don't believe that the war on terror is a front for the U.S. government to go after what it REALLY wants - information about who middle class americans call on Sunday afternoons.

An open society has a lot of benefits - removes information controlled by the few. We already see its empowering effects today where governments are toppled by Facebook.

The blade runner outcome isn't necessarily the most realistic one.

I also include non-governmental entities as well, the ones who would want to steal your electronic monies and your ability to purchase - so they can instead. We saw it during WW2 with gas rationing stamps and the pervasive black market, stealings and corruption that went on. If your identity and financial means become more transparent and accessible, what would prevent anyone (government or otherwise) from deliberatrly transfer wealth from you to them for their own gains or means?

I somehow missed this was a necrobump until I came back in. LOL.

I don't see the threat of reduced privacy coming in the form of the government (or anyone else) directly threatening my liberty, my income, or my assets. I think the threat comes from what the result of government policy will allow 3-rd parties to do with your information, and although the government's privacy battle may be painted as battling terrorism and evil, the threat we as citizens face won't necessarily be criminal (or anti-criminal) and won't come from some nefarious outside source....it more likely will be a constant, direct and personal threat to your time, your attention, and your anxiety, and the attack will come from folks like insurance advertisers, pharmaceutical marketers, debt collectors, and lobby groups, as they are able to get more and more of your personal information, and reach you in more exotic and prevalent ways, due to changes in privacy law.

And I think it will be a powerful tool against those who wish to dissent. "There's a new development against so-and-so, who, until recently, was the leading voice against President Johnson, who was claimed to be waging a secret war against his enemies by making them disappear. It turns out he likes to visit subversive websites and is a grade A pervert who likes to watch kiddie porn (clicked on a couple of unknown Google links). In an exclusive delivered by Big Media Corp, we have had the records of so-and-so leaked to us..."

SI