This morning, my favorite columnist in the world, David Brooks, gave his quick take on Edward Snowden, ultimately condemning him for antisocial behavior driven by a hyper-individualistic morality formed out of his refusal to conform to various social norms (he didn't finish high school, or community college, didn't want to be friends with his neighbor, hadn't put a ring on his girlfriend, no organized religion, etc.)

Brooks' column reveals all of Brooks' prejudices.  He's hysterically funny when he talks about how Snowden betrayed Booz Allen, as if that's the most important thing we should be talking about right now.  If you care at all about Booz, I'd suggest looking into why a CIA contractor is so incompetent about giving so much classified material to any one person.

But, back to Snowden. No, not back to Snowden.  Let's save the debate about his merits and demerits as a person for another time.  We'll just wind up shouting "Hero! Traitor!" at each other.  That's not going to solve anything.

Besides, there's something more interesting going on, though Brooks has missed it.  He looks at Snowden and sees an example of our dangerously atomized culture where personal moral convictions, some well thought out and some not, trump society's values.

But I don't see the same world Brooks does.  I see, rather than increasing atomization of values (and the corresponding increase in freedom) a sort of creeping conformism in American society, one that is enforced very strictly by the government and by your fellow citizens.

Your fellow citizens, by the way, are probably the most direct culprit.  I've always believed that a nosy neighbor can be a greater threat to liberty than the NSA.  In a world of camera phones, internet shaming and social networks, your nosy neighbor can be anywhere.  People are extremely willing to enforce mainstream valueson others, in any way they can.

This all serves the government, in pretty obvious ways.  A culture of more than 300 million people all doing their own thing becomes very difficult for the data miners in the NSA to analyze.  The government needs a baseline of normalcy otherwise it has no way to idenfity radicals and eccentrics.

Put another way, were Snowden socialized in the way that Brooks would like for him to have been, there would have been no leak.  Part of the mainstream ethos that Brooks is pushing here is that you let the NSA do what the NSA does.  You don't presume to interfere.  Brooks actually says that Snowden has revealed details about the program without proving any sort of "abuse," as if the program itself isn't "abuse."  This is the same thing as saying, "It's okay because it's legal," while ignoring a wider debate about what the law should be.

To a large extent, the government's job (at all levels from local policing to federal services) is easier when people "act normal," and live the types of lives that Brooks says they should live.

One thing I fear, by the way, is that Snowden will someday soon face the brute reality of how the government punishes the most strident non-conformists.  I hope that wherever people come down on the issue of Snowden's role in history that they mill not condone treatment similar to that of Bradly Manning, who has seen all manner of law and procedure used against him in myriad ways.