« Complaints rain down from the left on Alessandra "Baby Dowd" Stanley | truthseeker77's Blog | Select responses from top progressive bloggers to leftophobic Obama adviser »
An absurd idea by a "progressive"
I'm curious as to what the Center for American Progress, one of whose missions is to promote "progressive ideals put forth by such leaders as Teddy Roosevelt, FDR, JFK, and Martin Luther King," will have to say about the ridiculous proposal put forth by one its experts yesterday in a Washington Post opinion piece, in which he argues that presidential advisers should be required to sign a contract banning them from denouncing the actions of the commander in chief for the first 5 years after the latter's departure. Miller calls it "political prenup":
My personal recollection is that the overwhelming majority of people who reacted negatively to McClellan's revelations were conservative commentators. This blog post by TPM contributor and founder of the Washington Note blog, Steve Clemons, is just one of the many warm reactions on the progressive side to the initial news of McClelland's confessions.
I don't expect any serious progressive, including Obama himself, to agree with this absurd, far-fetched proposal. Besides being a possible violation of the First Amendment, we need less secrecy, not more, after 8 shady years of Bush/Cheney.
In other words, it is time for the political prenuptial. Barack Obama should simply require key advisers and officials to sign a binding contract of confidentiality as a condition of employment. Aides should pledge not to disclose anything they see until, say, five years after their boss leaves office. The legitimate claims of history would thus be honored, along with the rightful expectations of presidentsIronically, the Center for American Progress' blog, Thinkprogress.org, touted adviser Scott McClelland (whom Miller criticizes in his op-ed) earlier this year for accusing Karl Rove of contradicting himself regarding the outing of Valerie Plame, based on a conversation they had in September 2003.
My personal recollection is that the overwhelming majority of people who reacted negatively to McClellan's revelations were conservative commentators. This blog post by TPM contributor and founder of the Washington Note blog, Steve Clemons, is just one of the many warm reactions on the progressive side to the initial news of McClelland's confessions.
I don't expect any serious progressive, including Obama himself, to agree with this absurd, far-fetched proposal. Besides being a possible violation of the First Amendment, we need less secrecy, not more, after 8 shady years of Bush/Cheney.
Advertisement
Jesus, we win a damn election and all of a sudden, the ghost of LBJ walks the Earth once again.
December 7, 2008 6:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, that will go over well!
December 7, 2008 7:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for this. There are some ideas that will come from our side (now that we're ascendant) that have to be resisted. We should not turn the tactics of the right (such as the Reagan-era admonitions against "speaking ill of fellow Republicans") into our own traditions.
December 7, 2008 7:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Out of context, as you posted it, it read as satire. Having now read the target article, I'm not sure. It just seems a bit lame, and it assumes that "tell all" books are a real problem even when no dirty tricks are going on.
December 7, 2008 8:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
if its not a satire, it is sad to see "our" side coming out with a proposal like that..
We actually need a constitutional amendment requiring governmental openness. Mostly the Bill of Rights do not grant rights but state what rights cannot be infringed. An openness amendment would just admit that the public has the right to know what its government is doing and importantly why? "The government shall not infringe on the public's right to know nor shall it withhold information from them." The FOIA did not go far enough and the government found ways around it. But for a while there it opened up government amazingly.
December 7, 2008 9:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
More openness sounds nice at first, but just what do we need more of at the level of the Constitution? Drawing the line is always a problem.
What we needed with Bush was a Congress which believed in the Constitution more than it was cowed by bogus threats and Bush-inspired terror.
December 8, 2008 12:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
It should an an amendment, IMHO. A public servant is a servant, not the master. With Dubya, we had a Congress of incessant head-bobbers and a cowardly and/or complicit press. They were not the Fourth Estate in any way, shape, or form until the blogosphere called them out. Here is where transparency developed and the will of the people was made known in the public square.
It is here that ideas have presented and challenged openly. It has led to bigger and better things, such as Obama. While the press "debated" the question of whether the nation was ready for a black President, here that debate was quickly answered and we moved on. The press has been fighting to keep up ever since then.
December 8, 2008 2:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
My problem with Scott McClelland is that he conveniently waited until he was ready to write a book to tell the truth. I was struck by how stupid he always looked when he was lying through his teeth and how much more articulate and intelligent he seemed once he decided to come clean. I have no respect for him, but I am glad he finally spilled the few beans he did. I'm sure he knows plenty more.
But a gag order on people who have worked in the White House? Yeah. That sounds like a great idea...if we just officially burn the Constitution publically and call the whole Bill of Rights thingy off.
December 7, 2008 9:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
By the way, I just read the article, and I don't think it was satire. I think he meant every word.
December 7, 2008 9:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
pathetic, isn't it?
It read like he was angling for a job...
December 7, 2008 10:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Seeker, I can agree with you for once. Holy shit.
December 8, 2008 8:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
It did sound like satire, but it evidently isn't.
This person should be ashamed of himself for even suggesting this.
December 8, 2008 10:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
truthseeker77: I'm a little confused here. You claim the article proposes a ban on "denouncing the actions of the commander in chief for the first 5 years after the latter's departure."
However, the quote given does not talk about denouncing; it talks about a confidentiality agreement. There are two different things. I'm not at all sure that such a confidentiality agreement is a good idea either, but it is definitely not a ban on denouncing Obama.
December 8, 2008 11:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
Note that the author uses McClelland as an example:
McClelland denounced handling of certain issues by the Bush circle. And a confidentiality agreement is about not disclosing anything shared between aides and the president.
Miller wants to put loyalty first. He scorns the idea of advisers being fair. See this quote about Stephanopolous, for example:
December 8, 2008 12:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
How, exactly, would that improve the crisis of executive transparency and accountability festering over the last eight years?
December 8, 2008 11:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Besides being a possible violation of the First Amendment, we need less secrecy, not more, after 8 shady years of Bush/Cheney."
Amen! Hear! Hear!
December 8, 2008 12:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Greenwald has an interesting (if predictable) response:
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/12/07/secrecy/index.html
December 8, 2008 2:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Being empowered is definitely not without risk. You have to think really hard about what to do with power lest you screw up.
December 8, 2008 5:00 PM | Reply | Permalink