Skip to main content

Wikileaks and Me

Ben and I write about Wikileaks in this week's column. My take:

There's a scene in the first "Godfather" movie where an old mobster is preparing young Michael Corleone for a coming mob war. "These things gotta happen every five years or so, ten years," the mobster tells Michael. "Helps to get rid of the bad blood."

That's probably a good way to think about the WikiLeaks' release of U.S. diplomatic cables. Democracy works best when Americans know and understand what their government is doing. It's less helpful for diplomacy, however. So it's probably healthy that we get a once-a-generation look behind the diplomatic curtain, but it's not the kind of thing Americans should hope to see every year.

What's remarkable about the documents is how little scandal they contain. The last two decades have seen anger and conspiracy-theorizing about the American government reach a fever pitch, but it appears that the United States has a team of smart, savvy and diligent diplomats working hard to protect the country -- and its interests -- in a chaotic world.

What's more, the documents that have been released are of such low classification that a reported 3 million people already had access to see them. Even Defense Secretary Robert Gates admitted they were of low consequence: "Is it awkward? Yes," he said. "Consequences for U.S. foreign policy? I think fairly modest."

The real scandal has been the angry reaction of some American conservatives, such as Sarah Palin, who have suggested that WikiLeaks' Julian Assange should be viewed as and treated like a terrorist. That presumably means he should die for his actions. But there's no evidence that WikiLeaks' revelations have led to the harm of any American or allied collaborator.

If publishing the truth of our government's actions is so hazardous to American interests, perhaps we should reconsider those actions. Leave Julian Assange alone.

I'm not actually thrilled with the last paragraph, because even I recognize that the government does legitimately keep some secrets. On the other hand, he ratio of legitimate secrets to not-so-legitimate is probably out of whack.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Yoga

I've been making some life changes lately — trying to use the time I have, now that I'm back in Kansas, to improve my health and lifestyle. Among the changes: More exercise. 30 minutes a day on the treadmill. Doesn't sound like a lot, but some is more than none, and I know from experience that getting overambitious early leads to failure. So. Thirty minutes a day.

One other thing: Yoga, a couple of times a week. It's nothing huge — a 15-minute flexibility routine downloaded from an iPhone app. But I've noticed that I'm increasingly limber.

Tonight, friends, I noticed a piece of trash on the floor. I bent over at the waist and picked it up, and threw it away.

Then I wept. I literally could not remember the last time I'd tried to pick something off the floor without grunting and bracing myself. I just did it.

Small victories, people. Small victories.

Liberals: We're overthinking this. Hillary didn't lose. This is what it should mean.

Interesting:
Nate Cohn of the New York Times estimates that when every vote is tallied, some 63.4 million Americans will have voted for Clinton and 61.2 million for Trump. That means Clinton will have turned out more supporters than any presidential candidate in history except for Obama in 2008 and 2012. And as David Wasserman of Cook Political Report notes, the total vote count—including third party votes—has already crossed 127 million, and will “easily beat” the 129 million total from 2012. The idea that voters stayed home in 2016 because they hated Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton is a myth. We already know the Electoral College can produce undemocratic results, but what we don't know is why — aside from how it serves entrenched interests — it benefits the American people to have their preference for national executive overturned because of archaic rules designed, in part, to protect the institution of slavery. 

A form of choosing the national leader that — as has happened in …

I'm not cutting off my pro-Trump friends

Here and there on Facebook, I've seen a few of my friends declare they no longer wish the friendship of Trump supporters — and vowing to cut them out of their social media lives entirely.

I'm not going to do that.

To cut ourselves off from people who have made what we think was a grievous error in their vote is to give up on persuading them, to give up on understanding why they voted, to give up on understanding them in any but the most cartoonish stereotypes.

As a matter of idealism, cutting off your pro-Trump friends is to give up on democracy. As a matter of tactics, cutting off your pro-Trump friends is to give up on ever again winning in a democratic process.

And as a long-term issues, confining ourselves to echo chambers is part of our national problem.

Don't get me wrong: I expect a Trumpian presidency is a disaster, particularly for people of color. And in total honesty: My own relationships have been tested by this campaign season. There's probably some damage…