Unbuilding the Bush Presidency: Blogs and Op-Eds.

Go it Alone: The Future of a Political Style.

What exactly do we mean when we talk about Bush’s “go it alone style”? For an explanation, I refer to Jack Goldsmith, whose recent book, “The Terror Presidency: Law and Judgment Inside the Bush Administration” was excerpted in Slate. In this excerpt, he compares Bush to FDR, concluding that,

“The Bush administration’s go-it-alone approach to many terrorism-related legal policy issues is the antithesis of Roosevelt’s approach in 1940–41… The Bush administration has operated on an entirely different concept of power that relies on minimal deliberation, unilateral action, and legalistic defense. This approach largely eschews politics: the need to explain, to justify, to convince, to get people on board, to compromise.”

Ie Bush and Cheney like to huff and puff about expanding the power of the executive at any cost.

“The best evidence of the administration’s indifference to politics in the sense that Roosevelt understood it, the clearest sign of its lack of concern with public credibility, is its open chest-thumping about the importance of maintaining and expanding executive power.”

Slate has hundreds of insightful articles that deal with the Bush Administration’s “go it alone” style, but it’s worth looking at Bruce Reed commenting on Bush and Cheney’s “fetish” for asserting power despite inheriting the strongest presidency of anyone since FDR. And also Jack Shafer on “Bush’s Chamber of Secrets”, and “how they’ll prove to be his undoing.”

The Nation has a John Wiener article about Watergate lawyer John Dean, in which Dean asserts that Bush’s abuse of power is “much, much worse” than Watergate:

“Look at the so-called Watergate abuses of power,” he said. “Nobody died. Nobody was tortured. Millions of Americans were not subject to electronic surveillance of their communications. We’re playing now in a whole different league.”

Weiner quizzes Dean about the rest of the pack, and Dean concludes the Republicans are mostly pretty scary, apart from Ron Paul (Giuliani is the worst). With the election of a democrat however, Dean believes it would be possible to say that “our long national nightmare is over.”

One blogger worth reading on the subject of Bush’s unilateral style is James Bovard. “Do Elections Guarantee Freedom?” he asks.

“Two days after his 2004 reelection victory, President George W. Bush declared, “When you win, there is a feeling that the people have spoken and embraced your point of view … and the people made it clear what they wanted. ””

“Politicians routinely invoke elections as absolutions,” Bovard adds. Then he quotes George W Bush answering questions about perceived accountability: “Well, we had an accountability moment, and that’s called the 2004 election,” said Bush.

But what are the larger implications of Bush’s imperial presidency?

Here I can refer to The Nation’s Aziz Huq, on “Undoing The Bush Presidency.”

“When the next President is sworn in, the clammy fingers of the Bush Administration may still be wrapped around vital national policies,” he writes. And that’s not all.

“Acting largely in secret, the Administration is moving to tie down the next White House–Republican or Democratic–in ways that will prove hard to unravel. Whether or not it succeeds depends on the vigilance of Congress and the public.” That’s you and me, folks.

Another Slate reference (can you tell I’m a fan?). Dahlia Lithwick wrote a superb piece on Bush’s “War” against our civil liberties. Soundbite:

“It’s so tempting to laugh off Bush’s signing statements as puffed-up, groundless claims that he is all-powerful, all-knowing, and also devastatingly handsome. But this is the president talking and instructing his subordinates—and also outlining a broad legal regime that may not technically be constitutional, but that hardly makes it laughable.”

For more on the larger implications of Bush’s “grab” on executive power, see Nancy Ota from Albany Law School asking if “The Sky’s The Limit?” Also, a NYT book review on Al Gore’s “The Assault on Reason.”

“The administration’s pursuit of unilateralism abroad, Mr. Gore says, has isolated the United States in an ever more dangerous world, even as its efforts to expand executive power at home and “relegate the Congress and the courts to the sidelines” have undermined the constitutional system of checks and balances.”

But what were the reasons for this “go it alone” style in the first place? Slate quotes a “White House Veteran” commenting on executive power in the 70’s.

“It wasn’t the organizational system that caused Watergate,” the official told political scientist Anthony J. Bennett. “… I believe that if you have cabinet government, you have chaos.”The speaker was Dick Cheney.”

John Yoo wrote an Op-Ed in the NYT in 2006 entitled, “How the Presidency Regained Its Power.” In it, he says,

“Vice President Dick Cheney has rightly deplored the “erosion of the powers and the ability of the president of the United States to do his job” and noted that “we are weaker today as an institution because of the unwise compromises that have been made over the last 30 to 35 years.”

He also asserts that “War shifts power to the branch most responsible for its waging: the executive,” and also that in wartime, “flexibility of action is paramount.”

The Daily Kos has a less understanding interpretation.

“The national security trope is that last refuge of Cheney and Bush; one that they have relied upon time and time again to justify the executive power grab and who knows what illegal activities. Unfortunately, it’s a head fake.”

So what are people saying about it now? How does it refer to the current campaign?

Back to John Dean quoted in the Nation about Kerry in 2004:

“I began making inquiries,” he continued, “and found that lots of Democratic party campaign consultants believe that the candidates shouldn’t mention process issues. Democrats thought it would make them look wimpy to say ‘we’re being excluded from the legislative process.’ Kerry didn’t want to raise secrecy for the same reason – he thought it would sound wimpy.”

Hillary Clinton gave a superb interview to the London Guardian, where she was quizzed about executive power. Here’s what she had to say:

“I think it is clear that the power grab undertaken by the Bush-Cheney administration has gone much further than any other president and has been sustained for longer. Other presidents, like Lincoln, have had to take on extraordinary powers but would later go to the Congress for either ratification or rejection. But when you take the view that they’re not extraordinary powers, but they’re inherent powers that reside in the office and therefore you have neither obligation to request permission nor to ask for ratification, we’re in a new territory here. And I think that I’m gonna have to review everything they’ve done because I’ve been on the receiving end of that.”

So we’re looking at a “review.” What do the bloggers think? Well, Dennis Loo comments on the abuse of signing statements, saying that,

“there are those who have a hard time understanding how momentous the steps being taken are.”

Stephen Smoliar questions whether Bush is power-mad, a dictator, or just enormously blessed with chutzpah. Then there’s Hanlon, on how when Bush constantly refers to “The President” as an entity, it’s more personal. “He means, “me”, basically.”

“The question that must always, always be asked when the prospect of making a permanent expansion of powers comes up is “do I want every president to have this capability?” Maybe you think Bush should be able to round up prisoners and spy on people with absolutely no oversight or checks, but would you trust a Hillary Clinton or, down the road, an even further left liberal a la Kucinich? The reverse is true for the lefties, maybe we wouldn’t mind Clinton or Obama to have them, but what about McCain?”

Publius grades the candidates in terms of their approach towards executive power and civil liberties. And then there’s the Daily Kos again, talking about personal responsibility. “The Time Is Now,” it states.

“Now is the time to make your convictions known; to pin the candidates down on the issues you care about; and to make clear what you won’t accept.”

Do we want a repeat of Bush considering his re-election in 2004 to equal a mandate for unlimited presidential power? No, basically. So the onus is on us to make sure we don’t mess up again.

But realistically, has it gone too far? Is the power-yielding capability of the president bloated beyond all repair?

Back to Aziz Huq at the Nation again. It’s going to take a while, he concludes.

“The next President will thus inherit a done deal of dubious constitutionality, crafted in the backrooms of the Bush White House, that ensures Iraq is ours for the foreseeable future.”

Arianna Huffington questions at the Huffington Post, if there’s a way out after all.

“True, a lot of the harm Bush has done can be rolled-back or repaired. But the way he wielded executive power greatly increased the ability of the executive branch to do damage. And the problem is, even well intentioned executives don’t like to give up power.”

AND FINALLY: Here’s the interview John McCain gave to Der Spiegel about America’s unilateral approach (amongst other things).