Ou sont les Neigedens d'antan?

Well, the game is afoot: Edward Snowden is wending his way across the friendly skies in search of a sheltering country. But, as Jack Ohman's cartoon suggests, it's a mystery that all these supposedly whiz-bang snoopedy-snoops can't catch him.

 

I noted earlier that, by proclaiming his guilt, he protected himself from being quietly disappeared. Fair enough.

Pat Oliphant suggests, however, that perhaps there is a point at which being a famous fugitive becomes kind of self-defeating and ridiculous.

Now he says he joined Booz Allen with the goal of infiltrating the NSA and exposing their secrets, which makes him sound like a Double-Naught Spy, more caught up in the romance than in the cause.

If nothing else, it kinda makes you wonder what the big deal is: If I'm supposed to be freaked out by all this all-encompassing, totally intrusive snooping that probes into every corner of our lives and reveals our deepest secrets, how did Ernesto "Che" Snowden get a security clearance? 

He should stick with the story of the idealistic young man who, finding himself in the belly of the beast, recoiled in horror and had no moral recourse but to denounce the scoundrels.

This revolutionary take not only undercuts the whole "they're probing into everything" story but makes you wonder why he didn't just slip off someplace sensible instead of, as Tom Toles suggests, running from unlikely pillar to improbable post.

I'm trying hard not to let the Grumpy Old Man surface, but this really does remind me of the starry-eyed revolutionaries of Olden Days, who would go down to Cuba as part of the "Vinceremos Brigade," which involved a carefully guided tour followed by some bracero work in the cane fields.

As with Snowden, the frustrating thing was the conflict between sympathizing with the overall message and wishing for something more effective or at least less transparently, counterproductively foolish.

That is, unless you actually plan to have a guns-in-the-streets revolution, the goal should be to move the uncommitted to your side, and publicity stunts only work if they gain sympathy. When they are divisive, they empower your enemies.

The opposition is going to try to paint you as disloyal, as a pawn, as a fool. If they can succeed in doing that, they can keep the majority allied against your cause.

Which is how you play the game. How you don't play the game is with egotistical political stunts in which, like Tom Sawyer's hoodwinked buddies, you happily and eagerly grab the brush and insist on applying the paint yourself.

From the standpoint of a sympathizer, it's frustrating to be allied with people who appear to be dingbats and poseurs, but there is a real reluctance to denounce them because it comes across as renouncing the base cause.

That's not just about Snowden and the NSA and the Patriot Act. It's a well-established dilemma.

As I've mentioned before, I interviewed Bobby Seale in the early '80s, and he said one of the biggest mistakes the Black Panther Party made back in the day was failing to separate themselves from the poseurs and hangers-on, including the biggest poseur of them all, Eldridge Cleaver, who, like Jane Fonda, had a great talent for attracting cameras but not much of a grasp of goals and tactics.

He didn't mention Jane. That was me. But the pair of them were like the Rick Santorum and Michele Bachman of the 60s Movement, and they pretty much did for the Movement then what the Tea Party crazies are doing to the Republican Party today.

Here's the deal: Change means work, and most people don't want to climb out of their comfort zone to make changes in their world. That's a fact that every successful revolution has to deal with.

And as we go through the 50-year commemorations of the Civil Rights Movement, it's important to recognize that the mass of Americans did not want to get involved in a difficult situation and would have been content to let things kind of maybe we hope work themselves out without us having to actually get up and say something and do something.

But when nice, clean-cut young Negroes sat at a lunch counter and asked for a cup of coffee, it made America look and say, "Well, that seems reasonable."

And when peaceful bus riders were beaten by thugs while the authorities stood by, it made America say, "Aw, now that's not right."

And when young people in a peaceful march were met with firehoses and police dogs, it made America say, "All right, that's enough."

Which is why there were so many people on the mall to hear Dr. King, and Peter, Paul and Mary, and everyone else that day, and so many more at home saying, "Good for them!" and even, "I wish I'd gone."

It's popular to denounce those who watch from home, and it's appropriate to apply a bit of a goad, to increase the crowds who get up out of their chairs and show up.

But it's foolish to ignore the power of the zeitgeist, particularly in a democracy, and it's doubly foolish to actively alienate the silent majority. You need to have them on your side. That's how it works, and that's the only way it has ever worked.

If Snowden wants to be a hero of the revolution, he needs to stop, focus and get his story straight. 

Because, even in an age of one disappointing sequel after another, his movie looks to be headed straight to DVD.

 

Comments

[Richard J. Marcej]

Double-naught spy!! That's a classic!