Fascism We Can Believe In

I’ve never given Glenn Greenwald the benefit of the doubt. His brand of self-righteousness used to rub me the wrong way. Well, that is until I realized his arguments are sound. I've also started to realize that his Salon column is a must-read for those looking for an honest broker of the various political debates. There’s a lot on which we disagree, but I respect his courage and fairness.

Why do I say courage? Well, among other things, he’s not afraid to systematically dismantle the tortured logic of many of his natural allies, be they Nobel-laureates or otherwise. And I say fair because he's someone who generally believes in the social benefits of government intervention into our lives, yet agitates with the best of them when government fails at that intervention. For example, he's recently argued that the warm relationship between Congress and Wall Street is the complete opposite of what capitalism entails; these bedfellows create an environment of crony capitalsim, rife with abuse and corruption.

All of which brings me to this great column, where he shows us just how dangerous well-intentioned interventions can be. His piece explores a proposal that advocates a covert government dissemination program, similar to the progoganda programs of the previous Bush administration. In a recent paper by the author, he suggests that undercover government agents should spread the official government line via the internet in order to tamp down on harmful “conspiracy theories.”

The first thought that comes to my mind? Creepy.

Here’s the story: Cass Sunstein, one of Obama's closest advisors, wants the administration to use something called “cognitive infiltration,” which, the author says, is “designed to introduce informational diversity into [extremist groups] and to expose indefensible conspiracy theories.” Translation: Sunstein proposes that government officials monitor and penetrate online “extremist” platforms – chat rooms, social networks, online forums, basically all of the internet – with the sole purpose of debunking so-called “conspiracy theories” with “corrective information” from the government.

I am not making this stuff up. Yikes.

I agree with Greenwald: this is a terrible idea. Greewald goes further and questions the very existence of this proposal. Why, he asks, was the paper's author put in charge of the Obama administration’s information technology policies? Moreover, when a top Obama advisor advocates covertly squashing free speech, why does it all of a sudden make for good public policy? Greenwald argues that when the Bush administration paid people to covertly spout the government line – think Armstrong Williams and Maggie Gallagher – they were shamefully exposed and the administration rightfully lambasted. What's different this time?

(By the way, Sunstein's paper does a grand job of defining “conspiracy theory” and “extremist” in a way that would have included all of our historical civil rights heroes, investigative journalists, anti-war protesters, and government watchdogs, just to name a few. Also, what in the world is an “indefensible conspiracy theory?” Does it differ from a “defensible” conspiracy theory? And who decides?)

Overall, Greenwald's piece belongs to the canon of must-reads. But be warned: the piece isn't perfect. He doesn't take his argument to its logical conclusion. That is, Greenwald neglects to use the word that encapsulates the kind of authoritarian behavior Sunstein advocates.

That word? Fascism.