Like a lot of frustrated Republicans and moderates I've noticed that the administration is exceptionally good at making themselves look bad. When they have a good idea they seem incapable of explaining it or making people support it, and when they do something wrong they seem unable to own up to it or fix it effectively. They seem to be good at making deals and good at politics, but not so good at basic administration and simple public relations.
I'm firmly convinced that President Bush and the administration want nothing but the best for the American people, that they are basically honest, well-intentioned and in many ways kind of noble. They're also a bunch of twisted, myopic, paranoid, sycophantic weasels - which is nothing new in Washington. They seem to suffer from the age old political disorder of doing the wrong thing in the wrong way for all the right reasons. It brought down Nixon and Wilson and even came close to sinking Jefferson, and while Bush isn't in their shoes yet, he could end up like Jefferson with a great deal of promise and a great opportunities wasted because of political imprudence.
In my opinion, the administration ought to create a new cabinet-level post, a sort of 'ethics czar' or maybe just a 'common sense czar' or just a kind of watchdog figure, and give the job to someone virtually immune to criticism like Bob Dole or George Mitchell or even Jack Kemp - your basic Elder Statesman types - and let him slap the administration upside the head when they start to overlook the significance of actions which they may see as trivial but which paint them in a bad light. His job would be to constantly point out that the 'Emperor wears no clothes' and the 'gods of feet of clay' - maybe not such a fun job, but increasingly necessary. This is the guy who in the current situation with Cindy Sheehan would be there to tell President Bush to meet with her no matter what the results, because it does less harm than not meeting with her. He'd be a professional outsider whose job would be to give the administration a more balanced perspective on their actions.He would be like the ocean's response to King Canute's courtiers and their delusions of grandeur, as implacable as the tide.
.jpg?t=20120527181101)
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Steve S
Will wonders never cease. A libertarian advocating a new governmental watchdog position.
I've noticed that the administration is exceptionally good at making themselves look bad
at some other sites I go to, they are just constantly going after Bush. I can't really understand why anymore, I think it is just wasted steam. Bush is a lame duck, his approval rating is already at what, 38% (or maybe that was just Iraq?). I think people need to focus on other things right now, but I'm always in a minority, it seems like.
It would need to function almost like a permanent special prosecutors office.
*visions of Kenneth Starr going after Clinton, at taxpayer expense*
no thanks.
2 - Dave Nalle
>>Will wonders never cease. A libertarian advocating a new governmental watchdog position.<<
Government watching government is better than nobody having the position to deal with abuse of power effectively. And regulatory-type functions are one of the roles of government that libertarians of all stripes approve of.
>>It would need to function almost like a permanent special prosecutors office.
*visions of Kenneth Starr going after Clinton, at taxpayer expense*<<
One of the reasons for making it a permanent position would be to avoid the creation of a short term, politically manipulable office for special circumstances like the Clinton investigations.
Dave
3 - Steve S
well, it has potential, but I like the voice of the people as being the watchdogs. 527 groups or whatever they are called. They watch politicians and bloggers watch them and on and on it goes. Taxpayers benefit but don't have to necessarily foot the bill.
I'm not sure that even a Supreme Court Justice nominated for life, can be above political manipulation, I'm not convinced a political office can be set up to be either. Maybe I'm just getting too cynical about politics, but EVERYBODY has a motive.
4 - Dave Nalle
>>well, it has potential, but I like the voice of the people as being the watchdogs. 527 groups or whatever they are called. They watch politicians and bloggers watch them and on and on it goes. Taxpayers benefit but don't have to necessarily foot the bill.<<
Except that this system has become so divisive and dominated by partisan propaganda machines that there's no differentiation between legitimate, serious ethics questions and ludicrous baseless smear campaigns. It's all grist for their mill.
>>I'm not sure that even a Supreme Court Justice nominated for life, can be above political manipulation, I'm not convinced a political office can be set up to be either. Maybe I'm just getting too cynical about politics, but EVERYBODY has a motive.<<
I think it would depend a lot on who you put in the job. People like the ones I suggested would be hard to corrupt and hard to ignore. Plus, I think the combination of executive nomination and Senatorial confirmation does generally work, and for this sort of job it wouldn't have some of the procedural limitations you run into when interviewing Supreme Court nominees.
I think that ultimately presidents would nominate people for the job with such a reputation for integrity that it would make them look like they had nothing to hide, and it would be hard for the Senate not to confirm someone like Dole or Mitchell or Kemp.
Dave
5 - adam
This is just loony.
The people are the ethics czar.
Bush is getting slapped upside the head good and solid by Cindy Sheehan, who is the current ethics czar from the people.
6 - Silas Kain
Right on, Dave. You know that one of my pet projects is ethics especially teaching ethics in schools. I'm in the middle of writing a piece that you may like in relation to what I want to do in the Spring. More later.
7 - Dave Nalle
>>Bush is getting slapped upside the head good and solid by Cindy Sheehan, who is the current ethics czar from the people.<<
Cindy Sheehan is a specific example of why we need something like this. On the one hand, Bush can get away with just ignoring her. On the other hand, the current environment encourages destructive extremists to bring forward pawns like Sheehan to launch attacks which are entirely emotional and without substance and there's no one in a prominent neutral position to check their excesses.
Dave
8 - RJ
There are problems with this idea, Dave.
For instance, this person is appointed by the President. It is certain that the President would appoint someone with a good reputation, but who also leans politically in favor of the President. So, you'd now have someone with a good public image shilling for the President.
And the confirmation hearings would be the same as any other: The President's party would endorse his biased pick, and the opposition would ruthlessly attack the pick. So, by the time s/he was confirmed, s/he wouldn't be so "pure" anymore, and would be widely viewed as nothing more than a partisan tool of the administration (which would be somewhat true).
And anyway, this job is already taken. The people are the ethics czars of their political leaders.
9 - Dave Nalle
>>There are problems with this idea, Dave.<<
If it was perfect they'd have come up with it 200 years ago and put it in the Constitution.
>>For instance, this person is appointed by the President. It is certain that the President would appoint someone with a good reputation, but who also leans politically in favor of the President.<<
Which is the case right now with the appointment of special prosecutors.
>> So, you'd now have someone with a good public image shilling for the President.<<
If they deserve the good reputation they wouldn't just shill for the president. The three people I suggested as examples certainly wouldn't.
>>And the confirmation hearings would be the same as any other: The President's party would endorse his biased pick, and the opposition would ruthlessly attack the pick. So, by the time s/he was confirmed, s/he wouldn't be so "pure" anymore, <<
That wouldn't happen if the right kind of person got nominated. We've seen people cruise through these confirmation hearings, plus for a job like this everyone would be cooperating to a certain extent, because having a strong legitimate figure in the job benefits everyone.
>>and would be widely viewed as nothing more than a partisan tool of the administration (which would be somewhat true).<<
So Kenneth Starr was a tool of the Clinton administration? Fitzgerald is a patsy for Bush? I don't buy it.
>>And anyway, this job is already taken. The people are the ethics czars of their political leaders.<<
The people don't have the access or position to make their voice heard effectively except in the most general ways through elections, polls and mass movements of one kind or another. The job I'm proposing would essentially be a voice for the people.
Dave
10 - RJ
"If they deserve the good reputation they wouldn't just shill for the president. The three people I suggested as examples certainly wouldn't."
Dave, let's say this office is created, and Bush picks Bob Dole for the spot. EVEN IF BOB DOLE IS 100% WILLING TO BE NON-PARTISAN, the Dems would make a lot of noise about the fact he's a Republican, and his wife is a GOP Senator, and he attacked Kerry in 2004, and he was a "hatchet man" back in 1976, and a million other things. By the time the confirmation hearings were over, half the country would think he's Jesse-fucking-Helms...
11 - Dave Nalle
Not sure it would work, though. He's Bob Dole ferchrissakes. Who doesn't know who he really is? He's run for president so many times that everything about him has been dragged past the public over and over again. Plus, how can they find fault with a cripled war hero who's retired. They might want to, but they'd destroy themselves if they tried it.
And, of course, there's no way to do it without bipartisan input, so you deal with the hassles.
Dave
12 - adam
Dave, you should be the ethics czar.
13 - RJ
Dave, what it seems you are supporting in this post is some sort of benevolent dictator.
This hypothetical person has an all-powerful job, and is all-wise, but uses his/her power on only rare occassions. And almost everyone, Right or Left, loves and respects him.
No one can say anything bad about him, because there is nothing bad about him.
When we mere mortals get into a particularly divisive argument, this super-human enters the fray, issues a few Solomonic decrees, and then disappears in the ether.
Sorry. You sound like an idealist liberal-Leftist here. The Real World simply does not work that way...
14 - Dave Nalle
adam: "Dave, you should be the ethics czar."
RJ: "Dave, what it seems you are supporting in this post is some sort of benevolent dictator."
Now there's a scary combination of thoughts.
But the dictator comparison isn't really appropriate, because the position I'm suggesting would have no administrative, executive or legislative power - in short, no real powers of government. So definitely not a dictator.
>>This hypothetical person has an all-powerful job, and is all-wise, but uses his/her power on only rare occassions. And almost everyone, Right or Left, loves and respects him.
No one can say anything bad about him, because there is nothing bad about him.<<
Frankly, I've been fairly impressed with the history of special prosecutors in the last 30+ years, and I think that their relative impartiality might be a good indicator of how this job which is similar in function might work.
>>When we mere mortals get into a particularly divisive argument, this super-human enters the fray, issues a few Solomonic decrees, and then disappears in the ether.<<
As I described it the role of the Ethics Czar would be extremely limited. I don't see him as someone settling arguments. I think that his existence would tend to defuse those situations, but that's not his primary purpose. His role would solely be to monitor the activities of the executive branch and act as a watchdog to step in when suspicion of impropriety arises. He'd be working FOR the President, but with enough independence and authority not to have to just follow orders.
>>Sorry. You sound like an idealist liberal-Leftist here. The Real World simply does not work that way...<<
There is some precedence for a position like this. IMO it might not be a bad idea from the administration's point of view. They'd have a guy they could point to and say - got a problem, talk to the Ethics Czar.
Dave
15 - Steve S
Dave, I have to agree with the others about this idea, but I want to pay respect to your intent to clean up ethics on both sides.
16 - Dave Nalle
Well, it was just an idea that's been fermenting in my brain. It may not be the ultimate solution, but there's clearly a problem, and ths might be one way to address it.
Dave
17 - Bob A. Booey
Interesting discussion, though I didn't have time to read all your comments.
To show Dave that I'm willing to take his more rational ideas seriously, here's what I'd consider:
In practical terms, the management of an administration (especially for a President who fancies himself the CEO) and the behavior of its bureaucrats should fall to a President and his or her Chief of Staff. The problem with the Bush administration is that you have political strategy people handling these broader tasks of administration and good governance, like Rove. Hence the lack of ethical oversight or broader perspective on administration policy. As far as I can tell, Rove and Bush's political team have been among the chief voices on strategy and policy. I believe Rove's official title is something like senior policy advisor.
I don't think the creation of a Cabinet post or an official ethics czar would ever happen, but if it did, I'd worry about the potential for conservative administrations, especially to morph the intent of your "ethics czar" to become someone concerned with public ethics rather than the behavior of the administration, a Bill Bennett family values type intent on fighting culture wars. I know that's not what you meant in your post, but a fuzzy title and unclear job description featuring the word "Ethics" might become one of those easily manipulable political roles.
If there were an ethics czar, it should absolutely not be retired legislators turned lobbyist types or retired insiders. Jack Kemp, for example, would be the worst person in this sort of position -- he has a big ego, lots of old friends with backs to scratch, and lots of odd or poor ideas that he'd want to make into policy. Someone overseeing the ethics of the administration would have to be largely apolitical, non-partisan and independent from the policy and strategy side of the administration, which is a very tricky proposition. Prosecutors aren't a bad example of who might be effective in a role like this, but no President would be likely to want someone looking for mis-steps to publicize. The "ethics czar," to be effective, would have to have lots of access to internal communications and would undoubtedly be viewed as an enemy within any administration if they actually tried to do their job right. Now of course, if you forced the role on Presidents and let them choose, you'd have lots of good old boys who were just there to have an office, go to lunch, and gladhand. They'd also likely have no authority, for perhaps political as well as legal reasons. There would likely be huge, insurmountable legal challenges involving the Constitutional powers given to the Executive Branch. The GOP leadership would view this idea as anathema, calling it the effective creation of a fourth branch of government outside the Constitution.
No President wants a permanent independent prosecutor in-residence to watch over them without just cause. And no President would put up with someone evaluating their performance and ethical choices in the public as well. They much prefer to have their press secretaries go over talking points and massage the events and message favorably.
That is all.
18 - GPW
Dave:
I have a problem with both the position you advocate and with one of the apparent reasons why you have advocated it. Regarding the position itself, I don't think creating yet another layer of bureaucracy will do any good. If the Bush administration cannot be shamed into doing something by Democrats, the press, and the blogosphere, I sincerely doubt a member of his own administration will be able to make him do it. Regarding one of the apparent reasons why you advocate this positionâ€"Cindy Sheehanâ€"I don't think Bush should meet with her at all. (1) He has already met with her to console her in the loss of her son, as he has done for gold-star parents. (2) She has changed her story about her response to him from their first meeting until now. (3) While she has every right to express her grief, call for an end to the war, and advocate various other political positions, in my opinion, she does not have the right to demand the president listen to her simply because she is a gold-star mom. From what I'm reading, she advocates far-left opinions on any range of issues, and the president is sensibly avoiding her lest he grant a kind of legitimacy to her ideas by meeting her. That doesn't seem so stupid to me.
19 - dan
Here is your problem, you say:
"I'm firmly convinced that President Bush and the administration want nothing but the best for the American people, that they are basically honest, well-intentioned and in many ways kind of noble."
But then you say:
"They're also a bunch of twisted, myopic, paranoid, sycophantic weasels - which is nothing new in Washington."
Like others of your ilk, you excuse the low life who pretend to be leaders of your party calming it is nothing but the usual way things go on in politics. You pretend the first sentence you offered is really the message.
For any reasonable person, these two messsages are complete contradiction. The exhibited behavior is the true story and the sorry behavior demonstrated by Bush and Company reveals they are not nobel and have no high ideals. They are simple criminals and belong in jail.
When confronted with simple, honest and direct questioning, not postured by other political motives, they splutter and hide behind staff, excuses, and the same trite phrases they have been using for years.
They don't need an Ethics Czar, the just need a good old dose of morals.
20 - Dave Nalle
Dan, dan. You really are uniquely unsubtle. You know, it is possible for politicians to have both good and bad qualities. The good qualities redeem them to some extent from the bad ones which help them get elected.
So the truth is that Bush and his crew - just like Clinton and his boys a few years ago - can be a bunch of weasels, but also be well intentioned. The two characteristics fight against each other and create the dynamic which is at the heart of what it means to be a politician.
As for creating another level of bureaucracy, I don't see that as what I proposed at all. The idea was to have an individual with a small staff, in a position to have a direct impact on behavior, not policy, not legislation, not administration. Just on how the administration acts.
You see, they aren't about to get a 'good dose of morals' and neither are the next bunch we elect. The only way to assure some sort of morality is to impose it from the outside.
Dave
21 - GPW
"The only way to assure some sort of morality is to impose it from the outside."
How could the proposed ethics czar impose "morality...from the outside" when he/she works "inside" the administration? Aren't elections really the mainâ€"and most effectiveâ€"way to impose morality on politicians?
22 - Dave Nalle
Those elections been working real well for you lately, GPW? What with them coming every 4 years and all? And how is reelection a concern for Bush now that he's a lame duck?
Dave
23 - GPW
Dave:
Since I'm a Republican and voted for Bush both in 2000 and 2004, the elections have been working just fine for me. But presidential elections are not the only elections to consider. In 1994, for example, America issued a rebuke to the pretensions of the Clinton Administration and delivered both House and Senate to the Republicans. If the American people are sufficiently dissatisfied with Bush, they can deliver both House and Senate to the Democrats in 2006. The fact that that will probably not happen indicates that Americans are basically okay with Bush administration policies.
The "ethical" and legislative checks on Bush, you see, are not only his elections, but also the elections of legislators who will support or oppose his policies. Consider the elections of 1974 and 1976, which were influenced by the Nixon scandal. Or consider the presidential election of 1980, which turned Carter out of office. The fact of the matter is that electionsâ€"presidential and congressionalâ€"are a fairly accurate barometer of the country's ethical mood. If they're unhappy, they can turn the incumbent president out of office or make his tenure in office extremely uncomfortable. I'm surpised you don't see that.
I'm also surprised that you think an ethics czar within the administration wouldn't be coopted by administration interests. I'm happy to be corrected on my dubiety regarding this point. So, please point out to me the number of times in-house watchdogs have turned on their masters.
GPW
24 - GPW
Or rather, show me the times that in-house watchdogs have effectively guided their masters to change their policies. Generally, in-house watchdogsâ€"such as your ethics czarâ€"announce their opposition to this or that administration action, get sidelined, then quit in disgust.
25 - Dave Nalle
What in-house watchdogs? I have yet to see anything like that put into play by any administration.
And if the ethics czard got sidelined and quit in disgust that would be a definitive indictment of the administration which would be hard to argue with.
Dave