AN EVENTFUL DAY IN WASHINGTON

Two events of this day in Washington will resonate for years to come. One was unexpectedly reassuring  for anyone concerned about the state of our political institutions. The other was, unfortunately, depressing and potentially disastrous.

Listening to the Supreme Court justices question the man trying to defend Colorado’s (and for that matter other states) arbitrary removal of a presidential candidate from the ballot was informative, even enlightening and inspiring. All of the justices asked cogent questions, and postulated “what-ifs” were this kind of action was to be allowed. Needless to say other states could then go their own way on balloting as well. 

They all were clearly being detached and objective in their statements, and devoid of any political or ideological blinders. I was pleasantly surprised to see both the liberal and conservative justices mostly consonant in their queries, and treating the subject at hand as a matter of law and justice without regard to the particular political context. It certainly reassuring to see this level of professionalism in our justice system, at least at the highest level. There is clearly a lot more to be done to restore confidence in lower levels where power has been abused, or inconsistently applied. 

Attempts to alter or restructure the court because some people are upset about a particular decision, is ill-advised. You don’t upend the overall constitutional design because a case didn’t go your way. Now, more than ever, we can see the value of the wisdom of our founders in making these lifetime appointments. That is the only way to assure that personal interests or beliefs are set aside when external pressure manifests itself, because the justices cannot be easily threatened with a ruined career. That is what enables them to step back and see things from a broader, long-term standpoint.

This is clear in the way the court deliberates. They necessarily must see things from the position of how it effects the overall process, rather than the particulars of a case. For the pendulum often swings from one side to another. Even though a particular case outcome may be perceived to be detrimental to a particular heated stance, the justices know that things can change over time, so that the roles of the disputants can be completely reversed over time. 

Consider where this particular case positions each side. There is a clear ideological anomaly. The Democrats are essentially arguing for state’s rights vis a vis the federal government, which they usually oppose,  while Republicans are arguing for federal primacy in this instance, which is inconsistent with their usual position. Only the Supreme Court can be detached enough to see this in a broader, constitutional context. The court took a major step today in demonstrating how the system should work, and though a decision is still pending, the overall sentiment of the justices is fairly clear.

The other item, the report of the Special Counsel on President Biden’s handling of classified documents, is far more disturbing. It is not the particulars of the documents that is troubling, but rather the devastating conclusions regarding his mental health and competency.  It was only further compounded by his blustering press conference this evening. My own sense is that his handlers couldn’t control him this time because of how angry he was, so he ignored their advice and decided to storm out to the podium. But rather than setting the record straight the way he thought he would, his dismal performance  only made things worse by confirming the efficacy of the observations made in the report. 

It isn’t necessary to deliberate how precarious he has made things, not just for the USA, but for the entire world. It is compounded by the fact that we really don’t know who is running the country now, or perhaps even for much of his term. What he did do was enable what effectively has been a radical coup over the Democratic Party, with disastrous policy consequences that have seriously alienated a solid majority of the country. This is all on the leadership of that party for failing to address this problem, and especially on his selfish handlers, for hiding the truth and propping him up in order to maintain their own grip on power. 

There were already ample conditions based on his action or inaction in maintaining the territorial integrity of the country, but the votes aren’t there for impeachment. However, they should at least see this crisis as an opportunity to now deal with a very serious problem. If they instead go about attacking the prosecutor, (who was appointed by his own justice department) in an effort to delegitimize his report, or attempt to ride it out, relying on a pliable media to make it disappear, it won’t work. They will not only seriously erode their own prospects, but also make them culpable in this disaster. 

Even if you loathe Donald Trump, who by no means is empowered by these conditions, that is not the real choice that has to be made. Indeed it is conceivable, if not likely, that neither man will be on the ballot by November. The problem is more fundamental, and apolitical. We have a President who clearly lacks the cognitive competence to remain in office. We see him further deteriorating before our eyes, as does the entire world, including a number of powerful bad actors. They would be foolish not to seize the opportunity afforded them by a dysfunctional government, and worse, if they do act, we are not in a position to do a damn thing about it. We may further stumble into a war that no one wants, and which we are simply not prepared for. If this situation is not ameliorated soon, there are surely darker days ahead. 

ADDENDUM:

 The likelihood of different presidential candidates in November is increasing. If Biden stetps down and the Supreme Court refuses to consider Trump's immunity claim it all may change.

THE LESS SECRECY THE BETTER

All the attention currently directed towards purloined presidential documents raises a larger question. Why are they secret in the first place and how is this determined?   Few terms have been abused more than “top secret,” often for ulterior motives and obscure, unexplained reasons. Secrecy frequently gives unchecked power to faceless bureaucrats without any accountability. That kind of power is easily subject to abuse that is devoid of any consequences. Many people have been apprehended for violating secrecy, but has anyone ever been held to account for designating something secret improperly, withholding or distorting information, to the detriment of truthful deliberation? This security umbrella has enabled our intelligence institutions to become politicized, and weaponized into hitherto unthinkable abuses. Meanwhile most of the media that once might have raised loud objections and alarms about this have instead ignored, or more inexcusably, collaborated in suppressing the truth for ideological reasons. Secrecy excesses have provided much convenient cover and the whole subject now desperately needs some serious reconsideration. 

 

Secrecy is what has enabled one administration after another to lie to us, make disastrous and costly mistakes, while concurrently spinning the narrative to evade responsibility. But often enough it blows up on them, and worse, terrible damage occurs that could have been avoided had there been full disclosure in the first place. Further, secrecy is fundamentally at odds with the notion of a free and open society.  But that only works when there is a media that sets aside partisan considerations instead of participating in them.

 

Moreover, it is no “secret” that secrecy is something we are not particularly good at. Our government leaks at a greater rate than a pot full of holes, whether intentional or not. Washington is simply terrible at keeping secrets. The reality is that our officials are simply unable maintain much secrecy for long. It is also quite likely that our adversaries know more of our “secrets” than we do, given how porous our institutions are. This should also put to rest any notion about some nefarious hidden trove of information about aliens, assassinations or anything else consequential. It simply isn’t there or it certainly would have leaked. Otherwise, you would have to believe that every president since Harry Truman through Joe Biden were part of some great conspiracy suppressing the truth, or that Donald Trump would not have blown the lid off if anything were there.

 

Leaks involve intent on the part of someone to pass information out publicly. They are more embarrassing than damaging. What is far worse is when secrecy is maintained on false premises in order to protect the powerful, to cover up and lie on their behalf, prevent the revelation of avoidable mistakes, and distort or suppress the truth. Withholding information is more egregious than exposing it, even when ill-advised. 

 

There is only one possible justification for government secrecy and that is national security. But that being case it can also be stretched to unjustifiably transform something trivial into something consequential enough to be secret, or to cover up ineptitude. The temptation for abuse is hard to avoid when something is inconvenient, embarrassing, violates accepted assumptions, etc. none of which can possibly justify secrecy. As with anything that is overdone it ultimately trivializes and diminishes what otherwise might be important. 

 

There is obviously a need for secrecy in military affairs. It is also justified to a lesser extent, with diplomacy and intelligence services, but there is always a downside. The more something is secret the less it is open to scrutiny, alternative interpretation, alteration, or critical questioning that comes from open and free discussion. We have stumbled into disasters too often in recent times due to “faulty intelligence,” which usually means any serious questioning or consideration of any contrary evidence or alternative views. For that matter if diplomacy prior to World War I had been more open, the bumbling uncertainty that unleashed a terrible war and all the disasters which followed in the last century could have been avoided.

 

This has always been the great weakness of repressive regimes as information is unreliably skewed and eventually undermines the worst kind of state. That is why free societies have been able to triumph in the end, despite all their untidiness. The more things are out in the open the less chance there is of miscalculation, or worse, being fed lies to suppress some inconvenient truths and mislead the public. The more we emulate our adversaries the more likely we are to share their eventual fate. Experience has shown us that secrecy has too often been pointless or counterproductive.

 

Fortunately. perceptions have changed. When Ellsberg lifted the Pentagon Papers many of us reacted angrily at the time at what we perceived to be an act of disloyalty rather than to the substance of what was being revealed. But by the time of Snowden and Assange or the Iraq war things became more nuanced. It no longer is all that clear as to who the bad guys really are. However, the high level of institutional distrust the public currently maintains is also not healthy. This could easily be assuaged with much less secrecy, and more plain truth. The less politicians lie the better they will sleep at night and the more effective they will be during the day.

 

Now that the secrecy canard has come back to bite two presidents, we must wonder just how critically secret many of these documents really are. We really need new standards that provide a clear rationale and justification before anything is blacked out by secrecy. This should be stringent, minimal, and subject to review, both initially as well as subsequently. Secrecy of any kind is at odds with the tenets of a free society, frequently suppresses the truth, or makes things worse and ought to be sparsely applied. For history has clearly shown that the more things are out in the open and subject to scrutiny the less chance there is for avoidable mistakes. By now one thing should be very clear- the less secrecy the better.