One of the most popular self-conceptions of avid blog readers is that we're "high-information voters," that is, that we immerse ourselves in the day-to-day political developments reported in the traditional media, as well as the discussion and analysis that takes place in the blogosphere. We actively make ourselves aware of what's happening in the political world, and make our voting decisions based on our own internal analyses of this tremendous volume and flow of information.
When it comes to evaluating the legacy of the George W. Bush "administration," for instance, we're all too well aware of the dark record, even if the traditional media have been less than dogged in its daily pursuit of the accumulated weight of Bush's departures from our traditional understandings of the constitutional order and that nebulous metric, "The American Way."
Consider what we've witnessed over the years:
- the emergence of the use of torture
- secret prisons
- indefinite detention
- the denial of habeas corpus
- warrantless eavesdropping
- illegal domestic spying
- the politicization of the administration of criminal justice and of civil rights
- the claimed unilateral nullification of enacted legislation
- the claim that the failure by the president to comply with Executive Orders amounts to a secret and unwritten revocation or revision of such orders
- dictation of the terms of legislation by the president to Congress
- dictation of the terms of appropriations bills (heretofore known as the "power of the purse" by the president to Congress
- the declaration that federal judges are incompetent to rule on questions touching on "national security"
- the refusal of the "unitary executive" to permit the other branches to test its claims of "executive privilege"
- the refusal of the Justice Department to prosecute contempt of Congress charges against executive branch officials
- the staggering increase in the frequency of use of the "state secrets" privilege to block access to the courts
- the systematic suppression of scientific evidence regarding "administration" policies through the manipulation of administrative procedure
And of course, much, much more that I'm probably missing in my off the cuff recitation.
But the point of that recitation is this: the current "administration's" penchant for secrecy and for pushing all limits on the separation of powers in every conceivable direction to the breaking point has made us all low-information voters, no matter how hard we try to stay current with the news.
How so? Well, in November of this year, we'll all be asked to cast our ballots to elect the 44th President of the United States, as well as the new 111th Congress. And while we've all diligently studied the issues, candidate positions and other information available, what we don't know -- and it has been the design of the Bush "administration" not to let us know -- is the actual job descriptions for the offices we'll be asked to help fill in November.
Is Barack Obama the best person for the job? Hillary Clinton? John Edwards? Or for that matter, Mitt Romney or John McCain? How about Nancy Pelosi? Dan Mark Pera? [correction: 3 a.m. writing -- Mark Pera, who's running against incumbent Blue Dog Dem Dan Lipinski in IL-03] Tom Allen? Mark Warner?
The fact is that the information we have access to sheds light on what kind of track record and vision for the future these candidates bring to the table, but may no longer be accurate indicators of what they'll be able to do if they win election.
Are the people we elect to Congress going to have the "power of the purse?"
Is the president we elect going to have the power to unilaterally nullify enacted law?
Will the 111th Congress have the "subpoena power" we were assured that the 110th would have, but didn't?
That's has been the design of the Bush "administration." To leave us with less understanding and less information about how our government works. All the better to run roughshod over us, while we reel in the confusion and disbelief. This is a giant step backwards from the progressive gains of the post-Watergate era. The era that brought us the Federal Elections Commission to combat the influence of unregulated, secret campaign slush funds. The era that brought us FISA, to combat the use of the national security apparatus to monitor, cow and intimidate the domestic political opposition. The era that brought us the War Powers Act (which admittedly might not be considered properly "post-Watergate," depending on how you define that), to combat the limitless and unilateral use of presidential authority to commit our troops to combat and keep them there in the face of overwhelming political opposition.
But that's where the Bush "administration's" extremism has left us. Instead of asking whether one or another of the candidates is the best person for the job, we have to step much further back, and ask, "what's the job?"
The extent of that damage is almost beyond comprehension.