Insofar as national policy is overdetermined, who the president happens to be for a given term is irrelevant. So the question becomes, is the surveillance state

Insofar as national policy is overdetermined, who the president happens to be for a given term is irrelevant. So the question becomes, is the surveillance state overdetermined? There's certainly a strong collation behind it--the money alone makes it so. I suspect the president has very little freedom in these matters. Yet I wonder who's on the other side. Have all the major players just said, "sure, that works for me?" Surely someone powerful feels the risk. Remember that it wasn't the Washington Post that drove Nixon's disgrace, it was the FBI using the Post as an instrument. It was government feuding, and I wonder if this latest episode is another instance of feuding. Maybe I hope it is.