>An obvious counter-argument to this: NSA. If someone had said 10 years ago that an organization like NSA exists, and that it is conducting electronic surveillance at the level that it currently is, they would have been laughed at as a conspiracy theorist. One can only imagine what Ezra Klein would have said to such a person.
And even 10 years ago I (and many) would call those people (laughing) naive, and Ezra Klein if not naive, then in bed with those in power.
For someone from a place that experienced actual history (wars, civil wars, dictatorships, all kinds of governments and ups and downs, etc.), and has a working knowledge of US history (from Hoover and McCarthy to Project Nightingale and Watergate and so) it's obvious that this agencies not only do that today, but have been doing it, to the extend possible, for ages.
And that people that look too much into those things are also put "out of the way", or are intimidated, blackmailed, etc. And some are just discredited in an organized paid-for way (with 'useful idiots' in the media joining in to also help discredit them for free, e.g. Gary Webb).
It's not that different that in all kinds of places. No country has powerful agencies and government, or trillion dollar interests without also having those things.
I think both you and the grandfather comment are focusing on the wrong part. To quote the quote from the article:
>This is the most pervasive of of all Washington legends: that politicians in Washington are ceaselessly, ruthlessly, effectively scheming. That everything that happens fits into somebody's plan. It doesn't.
You are both focusing on the first part, which the author doesn't really refute. What the author refutes, and what is meant by the "it" in the last sentence is the idea that things happen according to that scheme. This line of thinking isn't meant to counter the idea of the NSA mass spying. It is meant to counter the idea that politicians are playing "4d chess" and every one of their moves are part of a larger scheme. It is arguing that maybe Trump's legally indefensible executive orders were just written by a inexperienced staff aren't trial balloons for an eventual dismantling of The Republic.
>You are both focusing on the first part, which the author doesn't really refute. What the author refutes, and what is meant by the "it" in the last sentence is the idea that things happen according to that scheme.
I agree that there's a lot of BS schemes, unfocused schemes, wishful thinking schemes, and power players with no clear idea of what they're doing.
But I wanted to point out that it's not just it, and that it can also be laser focused on some things (if only at the operational level).
And even 10 years ago I (and many) would call those people (laughing) naive, and Ezra Klein if not naive, then in bed with those in power.
For someone from a place that experienced actual history (wars, civil wars, dictatorships, all kinds of governments and ups and downs, etc.), and has a working knowledge of US history (from Hoover and McCarthy to Project Nightingale and Watergate and so) it's obvious that this agencies not only do that today, but have been doing it, to the extend possible, for ages.
And that people that look too much into those things are also put "out of the way", or are intimidated, blackmailed, etc. And some are just discredited in an organized paid-for way (with 'useful idiots' in the media joining in to also help discredit them for free, e.g. Gary Webb).
It's not that different that in all kinds of places. No country has powerful agencies and government, or trillion dollar interests without also having those things.