Snowden Wins Over Washington Post Columnist Who Once Called Him a Narcissist
Richard Cohen catches up with the rest of us


When Edward Snowden began releasing information about the National Security Agency's massive surveillance superstructure, he was immediately attacked by lovers of government authority. Reason's Matt Welch collected the early attempts to demonize Snowden back in June, full of pundits and pols who dismissed the young man as a narcissist (a word so frequently used it must have shown up on a talking point list somewhere) and obsessed over his failure to complete school, like that was at all relevant.
Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen was among those who dismissed Snowden. He wrote:
Everything about Edward Snowden is ridiculously cinematic. He is not paranoiac; he is merely narcissistic. He jettisoned a girlfriend, a career and, undoubtedly, his personal freedom to expose programs that were known to our elected officials and could have been deduced by anyone who has ever Googled anything. History will not record him as "one of America's most consequential whistleblowers." History is more likely to forget him. Soon, you can Google that.
Cohen also staked out the early defensive position that while the programs themselves were secret, there was ample oversight by the appropriate branches of government and nobody was lying about what was going on.
Now, several months later, Cohen has been proven ridiculously wrong, and this week he acknowledges as much. Edward Snowden is not a traitor:
The early denunciations of Snowden now seem both over the top and beside the point. If he is a traitor, then which side did he betray and to whom does he now owe allegiance? Benedict Arnold, America's most famous traitor, sold out to the British during the Revolutionary War and wound up a general in King George III's army. Snowden seems to have sold out to no one. In fact, a knowledgeable source says that Snowden has not even sold his life story and has rebuffed offers of cash for interviews. Maybe his most un-American act is passing up a chance at easy money. Someone ought to look into this.
Cohen's new talking points will look awfully familiar to those who have been defending Snowden all along. In addition to noting that Snowden hasn't actually betrayed anybody, Cohen notes that Snowden is only in Russia because he really has nowhere else to go, thanks to the administration's response to his whistle-blowing, that the amount of surveillance going on is actually much, much greater than we've been told, and that yes, we've been lied to about it.
Read Cohen's full column here. Any warm fuzzies about Cohen seeing the light are quickly slaughtered by the columnist's argument that Snowden turning to "responsible news organizations" (like his own!) to dole out the information and not simply releasing it to everybody via an outlet like WikiLeaks is proof of some sort of respectability.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
full of pundits and pols who dismissed the young man as a narcissist
Well, he did contribute to a Ron Paul thingy.
Now that there are other scandals and whatnot being focused on by everyone, he feels safe backtracking on his knee jerk water carrying on this one.
re: alt-text.
Isn't it possible that the 40 years working in DC is precisely what doesn't make him skeptical of government power?
This is a big deal;
These guys aren't going to suddenly turn on the state. They will never reject the establishment.
Rather, like a lizard shedding its tail, a large chunk of the establishment is getting ready to calve off a portion of the establishment that is now a liability to it rather than an asset.
So they will walk back their defenses of the piece of the state they wish to dispose of. They will watch each other like penguins watching the first guys to jump into the water to see if any sea-lions are waiting to pounce.
Eventually a critical mass will safely disavow the diseased bit without career ending repercussions, there will be the show trials/hearing like the Church commission, and a small bit of freedom will be carved out in an attempt to limit our desire to rebel and to get most of us back in the camp of grudging obedience.
For the NSA it's not going to get better. Eventually someone will come up with a narrative for restricting their operations that will play well with the vulgar masses, and that narrative will hit a receptive audience in some portion of the media, and the few penguins in the water will be joined by a cascade of flapping rotund bodies.
And the measures will be quietly reintroduced in later legislation.
The "NSA" might get the axe, but what they do will continue out of the light of day, and any future Snowdens will be "disappeared" if anyone in the organization suspects them of even contemplating disobedience.
-jcr
As goes Richard Cohen, so goes, well, no one.
But, I'm glad you're reading Richard Cohen, Scott, so I don't have to.
On the ladder of derpitude, he's one step below E.J. Dionne.
That's bad.
Ouch
Yep. He is a real Turd Wrangler. That's just one notch below Doosh Canoe.
Note he did not say "MY earlier denunciation...".
I noticed that.
Being a statist means always being able to assign blame to the collective
So, this is a real life example of hitting the mule over the head with a two-by-four?
Narcissus, or Cassandra?
If Cassandra, who plays Clytaemnestra?
He may have been technically disloyal to America but not, after some reflection, to American values.
That is much of what's wrong with "America" in a nutshell.
A lot of the, um, reverse going around, too.
a knowledgeable source says that Snowden has not even sold his life story and has rebuffed offers of cash for interviews.
Well, as long as he hasn't made a dollar from this escapade, I suppose he's a strong C- on the nobility scale.
This lends credence to the claim that much of the news media outlash against Snowden was due to their anger that he gave the scoop to a British news outlet, instead of the New York Times.
Don't forget he blew the whistle on the Obama administration. If it were Bush the media would have cheered and applauded him.
If I had hot information in my hands about government malfeasance within the Obama administration, the last place I'd go is an American news media organization.
You can't take it to the Demop media for obvious reasons, and you can't take it to the GOP friendly news sources because it will just be seen as Fox News spreading hate speech. You have to take it to a foreign news source. You have to.
Good point. The New York Times would have sat on it for months debating whether it was in the national interest (or the President's interest) to report it. And if he took it to Fox it would be instantly dismissed by the entire left-wing blogo-journo-echo-sphere as right-wing propaganda. Especially given that Snowden voted for Ron Paul.
But go read the article again too. Cohen practically admits as much when he says that "Information, like the rest of us, wants a home in the Hamptons".
Also note that SINCE the initial scoop, Snowden has given stories to the Washington Post and the New York Times.
So, why the refernece to the home in the Hamptons, if it isn't an oblique way of saying "information helps us make money, and we don't want it to be free, we want to sell it, so we can get rich and buy houses in the Hamptons".
"Information, like the rest of us, wants a home in the Hamptons".
Did he say that? Did those words come out of his mouth? Tell me you paraphrased that.
Cohen is still a leftard asshole.
-jcr
I think Frappy Do do is going to like that. Wow.
http://www.AnonWonders.tk
The My early denunciations of Snowden now seem both over the top and beside the point
How so? The fact that Greenwald and Snowden have been discriminate speaks to their character in a way that Assange and Manning's indiscriminate actions do not.
Just to detail the exact quote:
He has been careful with his info, doling it out to responsible news organizations ? The Post, the New York Times, the Guardian, etc. ? and not tossing it up in the air, WikiLeaks style, and echoing the silly mantra "Information wants to be free." (No. Information, like most of us, wants a home in the Hamptons.)
So, yeah, why the comment about the home in the Hamptons if that's not a way of saying "we're pissed because you didn't let us make money off this, but now you are, so that's ok." ?
*head in hands*
Jesus, he did say that. No need to respond to me above, Hazel. You just ruined my day.
This again proves that the press has never liked WikiLeaks.
I know I've been on the fence about some of the stuff that Wikileaks has done, but I do get a kick out of how miffed the MSM gets when they're not the gatekeeper.
Amusing how MSM used the word Narcissist to describe Snowden.
It is almost as if they are using a mirror instead of a photo to describe him.
So let me see if I have this right: Snowden was "narcissistic" to give up a girlfriend, a cushy job, and a generally quiet, peaceful life so that he could live as a despised refugee? That's some weird-ass narcissism.
I think the idea was that Snowden was so self-centered, he didn't care about any of these things, because me me me. Or something.
All that statement proved is that you can't win.
If you don't profit, you're so image conscious that you're willing to throw away the trappings of your life.
If you don't give up those things or profit from it, you're shallow and narcissistic.
The same thing happened to microsoft in the early 90s. Microsoft famously used to not have a lobbying presence in washington. The press actually got after them and accused them of acting high and mighty and being "too good" for DC politics. Who were they to not play the game?
Just do what you're going to do, you won't win with the MSM.
a word so frequently used it must have shown up on a talking point list somewhere
Would that list be anything like JurnoList?