Debates on domestic surveillance could serve as proxy battles for these intraparty factions. Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky, perhaps along with other Republican candidates, could use his opposition to surveillance programs to help consolidate the support of libertarian and Tea Party voters, at the risk of alienating national security conservatives. Democratic candidates who criticize the Patriot Act or the N.S.A.’s actions will be finding fault with policies that Mr. Obama has defended – and Mr. Obama will very likely remain quite popular among Democrats three years from now.
Precisely because public opinion on domestic surveillance policy is malleable (as evidenced by the Pew survey), it may come to take on symbolic power. How inclined will Democrats be to support policies that they might otherwise oppose because Mr. Obama pledges that the N.S.A. is using the information it collects appropriately? How much are Republicans willing to believe national security officials appointed by Mr. Obama — defending policies that were often first enacted under Mr. Bush?
How does someone in either party weigh the desire to prevent terrorist attacks against the image of a bureaucrat snooping through his in-box?
The phrase “trust in government” is often invoked in a political context, but its meaning is usually metaphorical, referring to how much a voter might prefer public-sector decisions to those that might be left to the private sector or to individuals. Here, it means something rather more literal: do you trust officials within the government to carry out their national security mission without abusing their powers? Do you trust them when they say that the trade-off between security and liberty is worthwhile — especially when many of the threats they claim to be preventing are based on classified information that you aren’t privy to?
Join the conversation as a VIP Member