A people without history
Is not redeemed from time, for history is a pattern
Of timeless moments. So, while the light fails
On a winter's afternoon, in a scheduled chapel History is now and.... - Little Gidding (1942) pt 5
Here's the red flag: "politicization of the office of Archivist of the United States...."
Concern is growing within the archival and historical communities regarding the Bush administration's hoped for "fast-track" process to replace Archivist of the United States John Carlin with one of its own choosing -- historian Allen Weinstein. According to informed sources, the administration hopes to short-circuit the normal confirmation process and see Weinstein confirmed through an "expedited" process. Their goal -- place Weinstein in the position prior to the November election.
Why not?
Here's why not.
Though it is not widely known, in January 2005, the first batch of records (the mandatory 12 years of closure having passed) relating to the president's father's administration will be subject to the Presidential Records Act (PRA) and could be opened. Another area of concern to presidential officials relates to the 9-11 Commission records. Because there is no mandatory 30-year closure rule (except for highly classified White House and Executive Department records and documents), all materials relating to the commission are scheduled to be transferred to the National Archives upon termination of the Commission later this year. These records could be made available to researchers and journalists as soon as they are processed by NARA.
In what appears to be a calculated move by administration officials, Rove and Gonzales have advanced the nomination of Weinstein fully aware that according to the "National Archives and Records Administration Act of 1984 (P.L. 98-497) the Archivist of the United States position is to be an appointment based "without regard to political affiliations and solely on the basis of the professional qualifications required to perform the duties and responsibilities of the office of the Archivist." If Weinstein is confirmed and if President Bush is not elected, then President Kerry could be accused of "politicizing" the position should he try to replace Weinstein. In fact, though, the president's strategy in seeking to replace Carlin at this time rather than later injects an element of partisanship that could give John Kerry, should he be elected president in November, ample justification to replace Weinstein in the same manner that the White House is seeking to replace Carlin.
Carlin has made it widely known that he anticipated stepping down from the Archivist position in July 2005, upon his 65th birthday, upon the tenth anniversary of his appointment to the position, and upon the completion of his ten-year strategic plan for NARA. His intention not to step down until then has been stated in several public interviews including (reportedly), in a recent interview with CNN's Brian Lamb (26 November 2003 broadcast of "National Journal"). Months back, recognizing that Carlin intended to step down next year, archival organizations had begun to pull together qualification statements and a "highly qualified" list of names for the White House to consider in finding Carlin's replacement. What appeared to be an orderly procedure to pass power from Carlin to a new archivist in summer 2005 has now been short-circuited.
Who is this guy?
Allen Weinstein possesses both strong Republican political connections and scholarly qualifications. In the past he has served as a foreign policy adviser to Sen. Richard Lugar (R-IN) Chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Lugar has worked with Weinstein for years in promoting democracy across the globe. According to the senator, Weinstein "always has had a keen understanding and perspective of the complexities of democratic societies, qualities that will serve him well as head of the agency that preserves the nation's most important documents." (For Weinstein's official bio, tap into http://www.centerfordemocracy.org/awbio.html ).
But outside the world of Republican political activists and a small circle of historians of espionage, Weinstein is not very well known by many academics. Also, he is a virtual unknown to archivists. Though he possesses fine academic training and qualifications, Weinstein has not been a member of either the Organization of American Historians or the American Historical Association for years, essentially since his career turned to that of being an activist in the field of foreign relations and international service.
Several historians and journalists familiar with Weinstein's scholarly and popular writings (especially relating to the contentious Alger Hiss case) and career have started to express their views on the nominee privately and publicly. His nomination has been characterized by former National Security Archive founder and director Scott Armstrong as "the most cynical appointment of an Archivist possible. He [Weinstein] has a very clouded, very complicated, self-promoting, neo-con, politically manipulative record....While he uses historical documentation in his work, he is very selective in his use."
Whew, this one ranks right up there with "Who will pick The New Supremes?"
