The Snowden Fallout
Snowden's disclosures about NSA surveillance, emerging in the midst of a continuing economic slump, have come at a particularly interesting time. The myth of America as the land of the free has in recent years been largely debunked by Guantanamo, rendition and the use of 'enhanced interrogation techniques' like water-boarding and stress positions. The fact that the NSA spies on everyone, everywhere is to be expected. Yet Snowden has achieved more than simply providing evidence for these acts. In sacrificing his own liberty for the sake of his fellow citizens, he has offered an alternative to the politics of fear and division encouraged by austerity.
As James Bamford's piece in The New York Review of Books notes, sales of Orwell's 1984 on Amazon increased by 6,021 per cent in a single day following Edward Snowden's recent NSA revelations. The parallels between our own ostensibly liberal, democratic societies and Oceania are stark; Orwell paints a vivid portrait of a certain kind of totalitarian state, where surveillance is ubiquitous and exhaustive, state leaders are irrationally revered and history is summarily revised.
Bamford is quick – eager perhaps – to point out that 'the US is not a totalitarian society.' Insofar as free and regular elections take place, this is true. The nature of totalitarianism, however, is not homogenous. China, lest it be forgotten, has elections. The crucial factor is the control exercised in limiting who can stand in these elections. In America, it is the vast expense involved in waging an election campaign that fulfils a similar purpose, restricting entry to the electoral process to the ultra rich. As a result, prospective presidential candidates are, depending on their party membership, either high flying lawyers or former fund managers. On the rare occasion that the Republican/Democrat duopoly is challenged, this challenge comes from the same corporate class, exemplified by candidates like billionaire businessman Ross Perot.
Whilst there are no explicit legal frameworks that dictate who can stand, the vast material wealth needed to finance a bid ensures that a certain kind of candidate is ensured to prevail. The consequence, unsurprisingly, is a plethora of leaders entirely unresponsive to public will, intent on increasing the power of the state whilst rolling back its provision of services to citizens. It is no surprise to learn that there is a vast chasm between the policies supported by the majority of the population and the policies actually undertaken by consecutive American administrations. There is mass public support for a higher minimum wage, nationalised healthcare and greater union influence. Conversely, the wealthy see the deficit as the main problem; issues like unemployment and education are irrelevant distractions. Even a cursory look shows which group influences policy and which group is summarily ignored. Of course, this phenomenon isn't restricted to the US. Rather, it is a deliberate consequence of the system.
http://www.opendemocracy.net/ourkingdom/joe-bilsborough/snowden-fallout
= new reply since forum marked as read
