Were it ever to pass, the USA FREEDOM Act would restrict the
NSA’s privacy-infringing data collection to individuals reasonably suspected of
associations with foreign governments or terrorist groups. As this article
reports, however, the bill – needing 60 votes in the Senate to be debated on –
fell short by two votes earlier this week. Of the senators whose support the
sponsors had counted on, Rand Paul's no-vote was by far the most surprising.
Known as an impassioned critic of the NSA, Paul justified his seemingly contradictory
decision by citing one provision of the bill that would reauthorize portions of
the Patriot Act set to expire in 2015. Nevertheless, many commentators saw the USA FREEDOM Act as a net gain for privacy rights.
That Paul serves as a member of the Senate Homeland Security
Committee is indicative of the vast procedural power that committee members have
over their respective issues. But this dramatic episode also supports Kalt
& Zupan’s theory of ideological shirking. Although Kentuckians (Senator
Paul’s constituents) are not necessarily more pro-privacy than voters in other
states, Paul has received support from demographics that do not traditionally
vote Republican because of his civil libertarian stance on privacy issues. Such
voters are concerned about recent NSA depredations and want the agency to
change its behavior. Paul, by comparison, is ideologically opposed to all overreaches
of government power. As a consequence, he insists on foregoing incremental NSA
reform at the cost of extending the Patriot Act, an older law about which his
constituents are less concerned. As Kalt and Zupan argue, representatives (the
agents) adopt ideologies that conflict with the interests of their constituents
(the principals) because it enhances their utility at minimal costs. Those
costs that Paul will face are minimal because 1) he will not face reelection
for another two years, 2) his future competitors are unlikely to care about
civil liberties at all, 3) rationally ignorant voters will likely not examine
his voting record thoroughly, and 4) his supporters care about other issues in
addition to NSA overreach. As such, Senator Paul's initially surprising no-vote on NSA reform can be explained as a classic example of ideological shirking.
1 comment:
The debate surrounding the USA Freedom Act raises important questions about how ideology functions in politics when issues are multidimensional. As this post discusses, the proposed bill is important to civil libertarians who are concerned with maximizing individual freedoms in private life. Interestingly, this article also shows how the USA Freedom Act is important for individuals concerned with national security. In this particular case, the Republican vote has been split between legislators whose ideological leanings place a strong emphasis on individual freedom and those who take a strong stance on national security. This issue challenges Kalt and Zupan's theory that ideology enables people act consistently, especially for a politician who believes in hawkish security policies and maximum civil liberties. In addition, the article suggests that Rand Paul voted against the bill because it did not go far enough to restrict the function of the NSA. Since the issue will be up for debate again in one year and since Paul will not face reelection for another two years, perhaps, his no vote demonstrates his level of commitment to protecting individual rights because he refused to accept a watered down version of NSA reform. In this case, the slack that Kalt and Zupan suggest allows for ideological shirking enabled Paul to remain firm in his ideological beliefs.
Post a Comment