A Leftist Defense of PRISM---And Critique of Snowden

Here's something you don't see every day: A leftist defense of the NSA and critique of leaker Edward Snowden. It ran a few days ago in a publication called In These Times, which I used to read back when I imagined myself a lefty in college. The essay is by a labor union organizer named Louis Nayman, and it's quite interesting. Nayman what seems to me a very plausible line for people of liberal or leftist orientations to take---except that they almost never do: the left believes in trusting government with big things, he argues. Snowden didn't reveal any illegality or abuse, so the widespread assumption on the Left that government can't operate legally in the surveillance sphere is really just the Left doing the Tea Party's work for it---and the assumption will carry into other spheres, like government intervention to level the economic playing field. As I say, interesting, and an argument you don't see every day. Some excerpts:

None of Snowden’s revelations thus far indicate that kind of government overreach. While the documents released provide ample evidence of data collection activities, nothing to date involves examples of actual government snooping into the contents of telephone calls, email, or other private correspondence without judicial oversight and approval. We should do all we can to assure proper oversight any time a surveillance program of any size and scope is launched. But it helps no one, least of all those who see a role for government in leveling the playing field between concentrated privilege and the rest of us, to reflexively delegitimize the government’s efforts. As people who believe in government, we cannot simply assume that officials are abusing their lawfully granted responsibility and authority to defend our people from violence and harm. If that’s not a proper function of government, I don’t know what is. . . . the more the Left aids and abets the reactionary Right’s cynical critique of government, the more both sides make the case to replace collective mission and accountability with the free hand of the market. Just as with schools, healthcare and prisons, if we condemn national security agencies entirely, we’re in danger of more and more of them being run by private contractors and paid for by us. Defense of life, freedom and property is a legitimate function of government. Carrying out that function effectively in a democratic society involves an almost continual calibration along a scale marked by civil liberties and transparency on one pole, and by expediency and stealth on the other. Finding the right alignment requires a vigilant citizenry and press as well as well as vibrant and responsive legislative and judicial branches of government. Maintaining that balance is not furthered by completely delegitimizing the national security functions of gathering real-time intelligence and lawful surveillance or by the wholesale spilling of secrets as a first resort, or by knee-jerk support for every self-styled “whistleblower” with access to a reporter or the internet.