The Newest Entitlement

I'm entitled. It's due me, and if I don't get it I've been wronged.” That's the attitude in America today and in many other parts of the world. It's often not clear why folks are certain that they are “entitled” to food, clothing, money, medical care, and other goodies at the expense of others. It's not clear where the idea that “the world owes me a living” came from. Somehow or other people got the impression that they're due anything they consider important, and those who deprive them are unworthy.

The focus of our desires used to be those items that made life easier and more comfortable. Our largest programs to provide these entitlements began under Presidents Franklin Delano Roosevelt and Lyndon Johnson, and, with the aid of Congress and the Judiciary, we are approaching a situation in which the government provides for all our needs.

At least all our physical needs.

Don't fret. Entrepreneurs are filling in some of the gaps (and they'll fill more when they discover that we need more). The need they're filling at present is the need to know everything. Google^® has provided for our need for information, and Facebook^® and its clones deal with our jones for gossip.

But it's not enough. We want governmental “transparency” as well. That's the term used. We're entitled to know everything that's going on. We're citizens (even though most of us don't vote or only vote sporadically) and “We the People” are entitled to know everything being done in our name. The Freedom of Information Act went into effect in 1967 and under its rules we can learn anything we want to know about government functions and actions.

Well, almost anything.

The act allows certain areas to be exempted from the public eye. According to the Department of State they are:

1. classified information for national defense or foreign policy
2. internal personnel rules and practices
3. information that is exempt under other laws
4. trade secrets and confidential business information
5. inter-agency or intra-agency memoranda or letters that are protected by legal privileges
6. personnel and medical files
7. law enforcement records or information
8. information concerning bank supervision
9. geological and geophysical information
   

That's not fair. We want to know everything that's going on. But there are ways that can be accomplished. And there are people who (probably believe – at least some of them – that they) are acting in the public interest by aiding in the effort. So they “leak” government documents and secrets. They maintain that the public should know what is going on. “Secrets” should not be kept secret. If we're paying the bills we should know everything. (Are we entitled to know the secrets of other countries, and are our spies and theirs “fair game?”) The Pentagon Papers, Wikileaks, individuals, and political organizations are the main purveyors of such information – violating the law but feeling virtuous about it. – telling us that they're doing it for us.

And there are organizations that assist the effort. Usually they want their own secrecy regarding involvement, but sometimes they loudly proclaim their involvement. The media, especially The New York Times, glory in scoops – especially in revealing secrets of the government, maintaining it's their right under the First Amendment. While proclaiming our nation's secrets, and those we may have been obtained from our allies, they staunchly protect their own and refuse to reveal the sources of their stories, citing journalistic privileges. (They must protect the source of leaks if they are to get future leaks.) Whether they would honor the privileges of clergy, attorneys, or physicians should they learn something that would make a good story is unclear. If so their revelation of the “Truth” is limited, and their political and economic goal is clear, but at least they're consistent. If not, as with their own “protection of sources,” they are hypocritical.

The social media also help in the spread of information – including revealed secrets – and in any other statements, true or false. People like to be the source of information and don't waste their time checking the facts lest someone else beat them on line. The “likes” they get from passing along information – whether an individual's secrets or state secrets – boost their egos.

A specific form of leaking is also seen in private industry. It's the whistle-blower who makes accusations of wrongdoing, usually by a firm for which he's worked. By doing so he often reveals company secrets. It can be a beneficial service but it's often simply a way for a dysfunctional worker to justify (real or perceived) actions against him. (Similarly accusations of discrimination or abuse are often made, even when untrue.) But the private sector has more. Industrial spying in order to get information is also a way of life – both nationally and internationally. Presumably that kind of revelation of information is just as proper, but we usually condemn it.

There are valid secrets that are necessary in international diplomacy, matters under investigation, and in some of the other exclusions in the State Department list, but there are also pieces of information that should be revealed and instances when secrecy is used to hide errors, foolishness, or misdeeds, and there should be a way to have information about them analyzed without making it public. Perhaps there should be a group of discreet judges or others who would review the leaks and decide if they should be disclosed or remain secret. They should also determine if the information was obtained illegally and its provider subject to discipline.

Of course this will not affect those leaks made by those seeking political advantage, sensationalism, social media “likes,” or newspaper sales. But it's a start. We can't know everything, and we're not entitled to. And those convicted of illegal leaking should be severely punished – especially those who are our employees – those who work for the government. They claim to be acting on our behalf, but when they betray us we should let them know that we are entitled to their honor and loyalty.

May 26, 2017