Though not unexpected, there is something fundamentally disturbing about the pushback by the Bush insiders against Scott McClellan. The very thing this is most wrong about the behavior of this administration is expressed in its most parsimonious essence in this quote from Dan Bartlett . .
"Part of the role of being a trusted adviser is to honor that trust," said Bartlett. "It's not your place now to go out and criticize the President like this."
. . . to which the media response SHOULD be . . . Why not?
Whose trust is that staffer duty-bound to honor? Why is it understood that a staffer who sees something amiss should keep his/her mouth shut? Who, ultimately, does that staffer serve? Their patron or the public?
Expectations regarding personal loyalty in the Bush White house have always been clear.
"What did he [McClellan] really believe when he was serving as press secretary?" Bartlett asked.
Foolish me . . . but could it be that he believed in say . . .honesty, integrity, the people's right to know or even the admittedly radical concept in today's cynical media environment, that loyalty to the Constitution and the American people trumps any allegiance to the president himself?
Scott McClellan seems to have had a revelation as he wrote his book. The scales fell from his eyes and, as is often the case, disillusionment rushed in to fill the void left by blind faith's departure. He could have just disappeared, registered as a lobbyist, kept his mouth shut and cashed out. Instead he took a stand. McClellan should be praised and embraced by the media establishment he once stonewalled.
This will not be easy for them, for in addition to revealing what we already intuited about the cynicism and moral vacuum at the heart of the BushRovian message machine, McClellan also sharply criticizes the traditional media for their lack of reportorial initiative. When they should have been speaking up and asking questions, they assumed the role of obsequious transcribers of the utter falsehoods they - and by extension we - were being fed. Message force multipliers indeed . . .
The media has, and will continue, to make much of the 'betrayal' angle, particularly because so few of Bush's inner circle have felt the need to come clean. (Paul O'Neill was an early observer that the emperor had no clothes and wasn't afraid to say so . . .)The subject of betrayal is a powerful theme. The question that needs to asking now however is betrayal of whom, betrayal of what? It would seem that the betrayal of the trust of the American electorate is much more noteworthy than whatever fleeting loyalty one human being should have to another.
One wonders if the media will find it in themselves to really pursue these questions of betrayal of principle, however, because it will have to examine its own complicity in that betrayal. It will have to continue its examination of its collective failure of will and its inability to remain vigilant under the pressure it felt between 9/11 and the beginning of the Iraq War.
We shall see.
Update #1. A quote from McClellan on the Today show this morning:
"The White House would prefer that I not talk openly about my experiences," he said in a lengthy, at time combative interview with anchor Meredith Viera. "These words didn’t come to me easy. ... I’m disappointed that things didn’t turn out the way we all hoped they would."
He added: "I have a higher loyalty ... than my loyalty to my past work. I have a loyalty to the truth."