Nation’s founders saw privacy as ‘self-evident’ right

With Independence Day just past, it might be a good time to address the one fundamental right, in a free society, upon which all others depend. It occupies a unique ecological niche, and should it perish, our democracy also faces extinction.

It’s now threatened, paradoxically, not by too little government intervention, but too much. Most of us regard this endangered species as all but a sacred cow, although some are willing, usually in the name of “patriotism,” to aid and abet the government’s attempt to narrow its range.

These folks take this first freedom for granted for themselves, secure in their private gated communities, protected by alarm systems and firewalls. They’re not eager, though, to grant people like me, i.e., secular, humanist, liberal types (“godless,” as a certain blond “pundit” would have it) – the same privilege.

If you have the “wrong” political views, no milk for you.

Have you guessed our cow’s name yet? I’ve given one hint, and here’s another: This endangered right is often deemed constitutionally guaranteed, even though unmentioned in the document itself. The Fourth Amendment, however, all but shouts it: “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated. …”

Privacy.

The Constitution doesn’t mention it for a couple of reasons.

The first stems from the framers’ worldview, expressed in the Declaration of Independence: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

They saw the right to privacy – and many others essential to liberty – as “self-evident,” intrinsic to human existence itself.

The easily overlooked reason, though, is etymological. The word “privacy” meant something rather different at the time.

Thom Hartmann addressed the issue for the Common Dreams progressive Web site a few years ago:

“The reason (for its lack of mention) is simple: ‘Privacy’ in 1776 was a code word for toilet functions. A person would say, ‘I need a moment of privacy’ as a way of excusing themselves to go use the ‘privy’ or outhouse. The chamberpots around the house … were referred to as ‘the privates.’ . …

“It wasn’t until 1898 that Thomas Crapper began marketing the flush toilet and discussion of toilet functions became relatively acceptable. Prior to then, saying somebody had a ‘right to privacy’ would have meant ‘a right to excrete.’ ”

Be that as it may, privacy, in the modern sense, is closely linked with individuality, which is itself a relatively new phenomenon. (If you go back far enough, one meaning for the word “individual” was “member of a group.”)

Historically speaking, the move from tribal (i.e., religious, community-based) culture to secular (i.e., rational, individualistic) society has been accompanied by the fear of extinction. Much of the tension between Islam and the Western world is the recognition that Muslims could be sucked into the materialistic, spiritual void (as they see it) of the United States.

Which brings us to the reason for the attack on privacy here at home. The current administration’s “Christian”-based policies essentially echo an Islamic fundamentalist worldview.

Both have a low regard for women’s rights, especially reproductive freedom. Both reject the separation of church and state.

Both favor faith over science. Both accept blind belief over facts.

As cultural historian Morris Berman puts it, “Islam and the West not only clash with each other, they also mirror one another quite faithfully.”

The assault on our privacy stems, at least in part, from a messianic view of the world. If President Bush is doing God’s will – and he says he is – then any assault on our rights is ordained, and little obstacles like the Constitution certainly aren’t going to stand between him and his theocracy.

I say privacy is the fundamental right, the first freedom, because liberty, in its essence, is the right to think and speak one’s mind without fear of reprisal.

Are you being wiretapped right now? Are your e-mails being perused?

Will research you might be doing – say, Middle Eastern studies – put you on the “no-fly” list?

Our government has, in the name of its war on a feeling (i.e., “terror”), proclaimed its right to spy on us, and it scarcely matters if it’s actually doing so.

If at any time we even think we have to watch what we read, say, or write, we’re done – and privacy, like democracy itself, will be dead in the “land of the free.”