Despite his clear and popular promises to the contrary, President Obama has not shifted the balance between security and freedom to a more natural state—one not blinded by worst fears and tarred by power grabs. If anything, things have gotten worse.

◼ Drudge's title: Obama's Police State Ron Fournier/National Journal

◼ Killing civilians and U.S. citizens via drone.

◼ Seizing telephone records at the Associated Press in violation of Justice Department guidelines.

◼ Accusing a respected Fox News reporter of engaging in a conspiracy to commit treason for doing his job.

◼ Detaining terrorist suspects at Guantanamo Bay, despite promises to end the ill-considered Bush policy.

Even the IRS scandal, while not a matter of foreign policy, strikes at the heart of growing concerns among Americans that their privacy is government's playpen.

And now this: The Guardian newspaper reports that the National Security Agency is collecting telephone records of tens of millions of customers of one of the nation's largest phone companies, Verizon.

If the story is accurate, the action appears to be legal. The order was signed by a judge from a secret court that oversees domestic surveillance. It may also be necessary; U.S. intelligence needs every advantage it can get over the nation's enemies.

But for several reasons the news is chilling.

Verizon probably isn't the only company coughing up its documents. Odds are incredibly strong that the government is prying into your telephone records today....

It is the lack of transparency that is most galling about the security versus civil liberties debate under Obama, because it shows his lack of faith in the public. Americans know a high level of secrecy and dirty work is needed to keep them safe. Most trust their president. Many approve of his job performance.

Still, they expect and deserve an open discussion about how to fight terrorism without undermining the Constitution.

Obama started that conversation with a recent address on the drone program, media leaks and the need to move American off a constant war footing. It was a compelling and well-considered argument for the balance he is claiming to strike.

But he made the speech under pressure, and reluctantly. It only came amid new revelations about the drone program and the disclosure of newsroom spying (the Guardian may well be in Obama's sights next).

◼ A shame about that narrative - neoneocon

National Journal‘s Ron Fournier (who used to be Washington bureau chief at the AP), is puzzled and perturbed by the disconnect between his preferred vision and the recent news:

I like government. I don’t like what the fallout from these past few weeks might do to the public’s faith in it…

The core argument of President Obama’s rise to power, and a uniting belief of his coalition of young, minority and well-educated voters, is that government can do good things — and do them well.

Damn. Look at what cliches the past few weeks wrought.

Fournier goes on to list these “cliches” and describe how the crises seem to support them. The title of the piece, which Fournier may or may not have chosen (journalists often don’t write the headlines for their own work, but since Fournier is also the the head editor of the National Journal it’s my guess that he did), is “How Obama Scandals Threaten to Kill ‘Good Government’: Emerging narrative supports claims that Washington is intrusive, incompetent, untrustworthy and heartless.”

So the idea is that government is basically good and can do good things and do them well. And that Obama is basically good, and means well too, and is competent. But somehow, for some unknown reason (bad luck? Republican sabotage? An unfortunate and fluky emerging narrative?) things have gone sadly wrong, and the impression the public gets is that government is neither so very good nor so very competent....

This is how cognitive dissonance works. The sufferer struggles to try to reconcile two opposing beliefs, or one belief with a set of opposing facts....