A "culture of secrecy" permeates our federal government. That creates a growing distrust among U.S. citizens.

That distrust, noted in recent studies, finds extreme expression in the harsh rhetoric and feverish fantasies of the conspiracists and militia-types. It also finds a home in a Middle America fascinated by movies and novels about dark manipulations, assassinations, and UFOs.

In too many cases, a government’s obsession with secrecy creates a public obsession with conspiracy.

No reasonable person would assert that our government should have no secrets. But in the vast store of classified documents that we pay billions to maintain, there are millions of documents that never should have been classified and many millions more that no longer need to be.

Secrecy for secrecy’s sake has reached the point that it is damaging national security as well as democracy. If anyone doubts that, just note recent examples of blunders and scandals in the intelligence community.

It is sad enough that such things happen. Sadder still is that they might have been prevented — or more quickly addressed — if we had sane and simple rules for classification and declassification and if the public, the press, and Congress exercised more aggressive oversight of the intelligence community.

Meaningful oversight is frequently confounded, however, by the makers and keepers of secrets, most of whom reflexively oppose access and who have little incentive to declassify or disclose.

That is the problem.

What should be done about it?

The American people should insist on effective oversight of our intelligence community. That means congressional committees that serve as monitors, not as advocates or surrogates for the intelligence community. That also means allowing a more participatory role for the public.

Finally, we must keep in mind that in the most open society in the world we continue to make secrets faster than we are unmaking them. Such pervasive secrecy is an irony in an open society. No other nation today, whether a dictatorship or a democracy, comes even close to the bureaucracy we support or the money we spend on amassing and warehousing virtual mountains of secrets.

The consequence of so many secrets is that it erodes public confidence in government. It hamstrings real intelligence gathering. It allows spies to go undetected or unpunished. It interferes with scientific and technological development. It retards economic competitiveness.

When government classifies too much, too high, too long, when classification goes beyond protecting national security to protecting the job security of officials who’ve done wrong or gone wrong, a democracy is in trouble.

On the other hand, maximum access to government information by the public contributes to sound and supported public policy. It makes government and governors accountable. And it makes democracy work better.

The corollary to the Jeffersonian principle of an informed citizenry is an involved citizenry and the corollary to that is a more trusting and, thus, participatory citizenry. If the government will not trust the people with the truth, then how can the people trust the government with their fate?

Paul McMasters is First Amendment Ombudsman at The Freedom Forum and a member of the American Society of Newspaper Editors’ Freedom of Information Committee.