Credit to Al Franken who played this bit of a JFK
speech:
This Administration intends to be candid about its errors; for, as a wise man once said: "An error doesn't become a mistake until you refuse to correct it." We intend to accept full responsibility for our errors; and we expect you to point them out when we miss them.
I almost wish JFK had been a Republican so we could better rub this in Bush's face. It is exactly the attitude I think liberals expect of their leaders, and a shame that conservatives apparently do not feel the same.
The speech goes on:
Without debate, without criticism, no Administration and no country can succeed-and no republic can survive. That is why the Athenian law-maker Solon decreed it a crime for any citizen to shrink from controversy. And that is why our press was protected by the First Amendment--the only business in America specifically protected by the Constitution--not primarily to amuse and entertain, not to emphasize the trivial and the sentimental, not to simply "give the public what it wants"--but to inform, to arouse, to reflect, to state our dangers and our opportunities, to indicate our crises and our choices, to lead, mold, educate and sometimes even anger public opinion.
This means greater coverage and analysis of international news--for it is no longer far away and foreign but close at hand and local. It means greater attention to improved understanding of the news as well as improved transmission. And it means, finally, that government at all levels, must meet its obligation to provide you with the fullest possible information outside the narrowest limits of national security--and we intend to do it.
The Presidency and the Problem with Conservative Values
It highlights to me a flaw I see in the American psyche with respect to Presidents: That of the Imperial Presidency. I'm Canadian, and it was a huge surprise to me to see the deference most Americans automatically give their Presidents. Standing when he enters the room, always addressing him with the (bizarre) honourific "Mr. President" and so forth.
I definitely don't want to start any Canada/US pissing contest here so I'll just say that our Prime Ministers are just called "Mr. LastName" most of the time, and do things like appear on Political satire shows like Rick Mercer's Monday Night Report, or This Hour has 22 Minutes. Can you picture Bush or even Clinton appearing in an SNL Sketch?
It seems unavoidable to me that such deference will mutate into unwarranted veneration in the minds of many, and Conservatives are far more likely to fall into this.
David Frum, in one of his books talks about how Clinton had let the formality of the Presidency lapse and that his aides didn't rise when he entered the room etc. He contrasts that (in disgust of Clinton of course) with Bush who restores all the needless ceremony, and even does things like leave everyone standing unnecessarily, and that he is highly formal with most of the staff, to the point of being intimidating. Frum glowingly approves of this deist approach.
Well, after Katrina, and Newsweek's expose on the inner workings of the Bush whitehouse, and how his imperial style contributed to the failure, I wonder if Frum would change his tune? I doubt it.
It demonstrates to me a little noticed difference in liberals and conservatives: Liberals expect their leaders to be flawed and human. We weren't that outraged by Clinton's blowjob, not (only) because we already liked him and approved of many of his policies, but because we all like sex too, and don't blame our leaders so much for enjoying it too. Conservatives were outraged too - some falsely because it suited their policy goals to bring down Clinton, but many out of this image they expect the President to maintain. Wasn't that a campaign promise of Bush, to restore the dignity of the Presidency?
Perhaps the next democratic Presidential candidate should be promising to restore the humanity of the Presidency. Start with JFK's prescient words, and admit up front Presidents make mistakes. The President is human, a liberal value. Putting a man on a pedastal has never benefitted anyone but the guy on the pedastal, and I'm pretty sure that's not the point of the office of the Presidency.