Worthy topic, unworthy analysis (after all, it’s David Brooks)

No question that Edward Snowden’s decision to blow the whistle on the NSA’s meta-data program raises questions. When is someone justified in violating a secrecy oath? Or reporting on their employer? At what point does duty to the public outweigh loyalty to your employer and colleague? When do you obey your government and when do you challenge official decisions?
Unsurprisingly, David Brooks’ column on the topic doesn’t answer any of them (link isn’t direct). Instead (and equally unsurprisingly, he works it into his usual frame of how society is falling apart and we were all happiers back in the days when the elites ran the country with less input from us (which was fine because our leaders are “immeasurably superior” to us ordinary peons).
To be specific, Brooks portrays Snowden as a loner living “a life unshaped by the mediating institutions of civil society,” detached from family and co-workers, uninterested in his neighbors, an embodiment of “the loosening of social bonds, the apparently growing share of young men in their 20s who are living technological existences in the fuzzy land between their childhood institutions and adult family commitments.” Oh, and he donated to Ron Paul’s presidential campaign which suggests “deep suspicion of authority, the strong belief that hierarchies and organizations are suspect.”
This, of course, ignores that (as noted at the first link above) he had a live-in girlfriend. Heck, it sounds so much like the stereotype of a guy who goes postal (quiet loner, keeps to himself, never says much) I wonder if it’s intentional. Because Brooks thinks Snowden has been a very bad boy indeed. By refusing to accept his government’s decision he’s contributing to “the rising tide of distrust, the corrosive spread of cynicism, the fraying of the social fabric.” He’s too individualistic to care about the common good. He’s actually making things worse because he gives the government incentive to be even more secretive, and “if federal security agencies can’t do vast data sweeps, they will inevitably revert to the older, more intrusive eavesdropping methods.” And by questioning our “immeasurably superior” leaders he’s also violated the Constitution because this is a government decision, not one some little pissant nobody can make (apparently if our ubermenschen masters decide what they’re doing is constitutional, that’s good enough for Brooks)
As Echidne points out at the first link, Brooks is a strong believer in authoritarian structures. He sees Snowden’s problem as not accepting his role in a authoritative network of “family, neighborhood, religious group, state, nation.” Instead, he goes it alone, and that’s bad. In Brooks’ worldview, people have to be pushed to “lead disciplined, orderly lives” in a harmonious social order. The fact that in the early 20th century (which he considers a high point for ordered society) the harmony was preserved by ruthless forcing minorities to submit to WASP dominance doesn’t discourage him from embracing it as a Golden Age (as Echidne points out, Saudi Arabia should be ideal for Brooks—a tightly authoritarian country with a strongly imposed social and religious order). As I’ve pointed out before, Brooks also sees the old-fashioned virtues (loyalty, duty) as something the lower classes need, not anything for our immeasurably superior leaders.
The New Yorker mocks the idea Snowden could have fixed things going through channel or that government will actually become more secretive or more intrusive (Brooks ignores the possibility of actually restraining the NSA snooping). Alex Pareene looks at the discussion over Snowden’s personality and suggests the merits of the leak don’t depend on whether Snowden is a crazy loner or a thoughtful patriot. Reuters asks why Snowden’s leaks are worse than the ones Washington reporters normally use.
Reading Brooks makes me conclude pundits are a lot like CEOs. No matter how inept you are, it’s unlikely you’ll get the axe.