A late-spring storm of Washington controversies has created a rare event in these partisan, polarized times: a shared I-told-you-so moment for the left and the right.
For anyone worried about the potential for government overreach, the past few weeks have brought more cause for concern.
The Internal Revenue Service targeting conservative groups for special scrutiny. The Justice Department subpoenaing the records of media organizations in a search-and-destroy mission against their sources of information. The National Security Agency sweeping up phone records and secretly tapping into the Internet services that have become the nervous system of 21st-century life.
All raise questions that go beyond the ideological differences over the size and cost of government that have come to define the Democratic and Republican parties.
In a different way, each of the controversies stirs misgivings — sometimes dismissed as paranoia — that the most ardent liberals and conservatives have long held about Washington’s power and reach.
That explains why the newly revealed leaker of classified information about government surveillance, 29-year-old tech specialist Edward Snowden, has been hailed as a “hero” by figures as diverse as conservative commentator Glenn Beck, liberal filmmaker Michael Moore and Daniel Ellsberg of Pentagon Papers fame.
And the scandals — or pseudo-scandals, depending on one’s point of view — land at a time when polls show the public’s trust in the federal government is at or near all-time lows.
“All of those things fit together as almost a patchwork quilt of too much, too far and too intrusive,” Democratic pollster Peter D. Hart said. “It’s not bringing people together. It’s uniting in outrage.”
More unsettling for people of both parties is the through-the-looking-glass quality of the controversies.
That is particularly true of President Obama’s aggressive use of the surveillance measures that President George W. Bush sought in the wake of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. Democrats, including then-Sen. Barack Obama, decried these measures as overreach.
“When you give your government power, it’s for always. It’s not just for when your team is in office,” said conservative activist Grover Norquist, who loudly criticized the domestic surveillance programs when they became public during the Bush years. “And when you give people power, it demands to be used. . . . Obama was continuing and building on powers the Republicans demanded the government should have.”
Qualms like that have produced some unusual alliances.
Vermont’s Patrick J. Leahy (D), the liberal Senate Judiciary Committee chairman, has teamed with Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah), a tea party champion, on a bill that would require the government to obtain a search warrant, based on probable cause, before it obtains e-mail and other electronic communications. (The current law, written in the pre-Internet era, allows electronic messages older than 180 days to be more easily accessed with a subpoena.)
Although the bill was blocked last fall by Judiciary Committee Republicans, it sailed through the committee in April. On Thursday, the ardently libertarian Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) announced that he was joining as a co-sponsor.
“There is a strain in American politics that brings people like Durbin and Mike Lee and Rand Paul together — the libertarians meet the left,” said Sen. Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.), the liberal Senate majority whip who has sought to restrain the government’s surveillance authority.
That was true even before the recent crop of revelations.
In March, Paul created a sensation among the left and the right when he took to the Senate floor and staged a rare “talking filibuster,” orating nearly 13 hours straight to protest the Obama administration’s policies on the use of unmanned drones.
He and his allies drew the scorn of many of their colleagues — Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) called them “wacko birds.” But the Internet lighted up with more than 1 million tweets relating to the filibuster, 450,000 with the hashtag #standwithrand.
And one of those who joined Paul in the effort was Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), a liberal. “Mr. President, what it comes down to is, every American has the right to know when their government believes that it is allowed to kill them,” Wyden said, delivering what was probably the most blistering line of the debate.
It remains to be seen how much the more recent controversies will shift the overall political dynamic.
The latest to erupt are the revelations about the extensiveness of government surveillance. Supporters of the programs, such as Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-
Calif.), say that what has been revealed was merely an extension of existing measures and that such tactics have been invaluable in keeping the country safe.
Although Sept. 11 is more than a decade behind us, Americans remain fearful of a sneak attack by terrorists. After the Boston Marathon bombing in April, there was a torrent of criticism questioning why the government did not catch signals that the two brothers suspected in the bombing might have been planning the attack.
Meanwhile, Americans have grown more accustomed to surrendering slivers of their privacy. In exchange for discounts and convenience, they let Amazon know what they read, iTunes know what they listen to and Safeway know what they eat.
When respondents in a Time-CNN poll were given a choice two weeks after the marathon bombing, however, 61 percent said they were more concerned about the government enacting new anti-terrorism policies that restrict civil liberties, compared with 31 percent who said they are more worried about the government failing to enact strong new anti-terrorism policies.
Durbin said he was surprised by the poll result, which he believes suggests a different public attitude than prevailed after the Sept. 11 attacks.
“The Time poll was done after Boston, when you would have thought that would have colored the answer, and it didn’t,” Durbin said.
By contrast, a new Washington Post-Pew Research Center poll released Monday shows little underlying shift in Americans’ continue prioritization of terrorism investigations over privacy protections.
When Durbin and Lee offered an amendment in July that would have imposed more limits on warrantless surveillance of citizens, it got only three votes in the Judiciary Committee: their own and that of Sen. Christopher A. Coons (D-Del.).
“It might get a different vote today,” Durbin said. “I don’t know if it would pass, but I think it would get more than three.”
Norquist also argued that, taken together, the controversies may have created a new, more enduring awareness of the dangers of unbridled government.
The aggrieved now include tea party activists who believe they were unfairly singled out by the IRS, liberals who expected Obama to exercise more restraint, and the news media, fearful of a chilling effect on the flow of vital information.
“It’s easier for both teams to say those are powers no one should have,” Norquist said about the recent revelations. “It gored the right. It gored the left. And it gored the judge — the press.”