Right now the coverage will be dominated by how qualified these folks were and their theories for their dismissals. We are trying to muddy the coverage up a bit by trying to put the focus on the process in which they were told - I suspect we are going to get to the point where DOJ has to say this anyway. First, it is true. Second, we are having morale problems with our other US Attorneys who understand the decision but think that these folks were not treated well in the process. I think from an internal management perspective it needs to be said.Democracy works best when government is transparent. But transparent government means every decision that the high government officials make is carefully scrutinized and is attacked by those who find themselves disadvantaged by that decision.
That balance of competing interests leads to better, more comprehensive decisions. But they are much harder to come up with, they are harder to implement, and they are especially difficult to explain to the public in our modern political environment where large numbers of votes swing for or against a candidate based on the face validity of an extremely short and simplistic sound byte.
The solution Cheney and Bush have adopted is to do everything in secrecy. They have to do this, because most of their philosophical positions and decisions will not stand up under public scrutiny. This is not an administration that is especially adept at making and effectively implementing difficult decisions. But the American public has gotten wise to their "Trust me!" rhetoric, and the secrecy has to go.
That means that spokespersons are going to be forced to inform the public and the Congress rather than "Muddy the Waters."
At least let's hope so. It really matters to those of us who love the American two hundred year experiment in democracy.
No comments:
Post a Comment