In the main, I agree with Scott Lemieux’s argument:
In other words, in the context of whisteblowing (as opposed to elections), opponents of the contemporary national security state are allies of liberalism even if they themselves aren’t liberals. [Edward] Snowden may have all kinds of nutty and objectionable political views, but that doesn’t make him wrong about the NSA, and unlike Rand Paul he actually did something about it. As Henry [Farrell] says, until Snowden runs for Congress it’s those actions we should evaluate. [Sean] Wilentz’s conflation of the national security state with the “liberal state,” conversely, does liberalism no favors.
I’m not really interested in Sean Wilentz’s wanking, but the relationship of liberals to the national security state is an interesting topic. On the one hand, there is the progressive critique of U.S. foreign policy, as well as a near-universal consensus that we spend too much on “national security” in all its permutations, and not enough on social welfare (broadly interpreted) and infrastructure.
On the other hand, liberals need to make a convincing argument that they should be entrusted with our nation’s foreign policy and defense. And that’s been a theme for me over the years, because my goal is not for liberals to perpetually be locked in the counterculture, on the outside looking in, pointing disapproving fingers at the state. My goal is for liberals to reestablish themselves as The Establishment. We want to run this country, not bash it.
But the countercultural habits the left has developed work against us, both for how we are perceived by others (as untrustworthy and weak), and for the goals we set for ourselves (lacking sufficient ambition and vision).
We need to remember, the goal is to run this country, and run it well.