Edward Lazarus takes the above the fray "Rawlsian" (see, e.g., Morality in Our Age: Human Rights & Civil Rights [CD]) approach to modern government in his column today. I appreciate this, and to be honest, divided government would be my preference. We had a one party government in '94, which actually was a centrist one in various ways (even then, we had the O'Connor Court, which meant Democrats did not really control all three branches; cf. 2006). And, it didn't work too well, actually.
But, this would require two credible parties. The Rovian approach, aggravated by one party rule, has made this somewhat impossible. It should be a seminal negative example to show the value of Madison's Federalist No. 10 ... the tyranny of the majority, where there is no competing factions, but one mega-faction. [The value of divided government is also shown in No. 51, in particular the problem with the 2003-7 regime, and one that remains too true even to this day.]
This leviathan underlines why a basic agreement of ideal political norms, as assumed by Lazarus essay, only takes us so far. And, makes this sounds naive:
Take the current scandal over the Bush Administration's firing of various U.S. Attorneys. I can understand the Democrats' desire to investigate this issue to death. We ought to know whether some of these U.S. Attorneys were fired because they refused to play ball with a White House that wanted them to use the enormous power of investigation and prosecution for partisan ends. And we ought to know whether high-ranking officials have lied about this under oath.
But investigating the past is unlikely to get us very far in answering important questions about what, in the future, should be the proper relationship between the White House and the Department of Justice, between the Attorney General and local U.S. Attorneys, and between high- ranking DOJ political appointees and the civil servants who make up the professional backbone of the agency.
What is this business about "investigate this issue to death?" If only we had such investigations. Fact is, we have had investigations, at least among certain committees, particularly a few led by career legislators like Rep. Waxman who did yeoman work in this regard. But, they were never truly complete, and not really somehow neverending either. This allows a useful running out the clock strategy by the administration.
[Here's a prime example. How long did it take to get this? And, still, there are a lot of unanswered questions ... meanwhile, the person who helped hinder the investigation, who a bipartisan group wants gone, got more power. How "far" will this take us?]
Likewise, we heard this "forward looking" business in the screw America's ideals process of the FISA amendment law. We cannot look to the past, we must look to the future. This is insane, not only to those of us with a healthy respect of history. We decide our future acts by judging what worked and did not work in the past. An incomplete understanding will result in problems in the future. This surely is the case when the future would require limits on the powers of certain parties.
[Consider this reply to an addition to the debate cum disgust over "liberal" foreign policy sorts who called the war "defensible," but insist they are against it, really they are, but lets be reasonable about it ... and let's not look to the past, but the future. The reply is to a discussion of how the "accepted wisdom" is misleading at best, "wisdom" that influences our current policy. Next stop, Iran! So, the "tea and crumpets" (h/t a comment there) approach is hard to take. But, the "why look back" line is equally annoying. Not only active ignorance, but feigned shock at those who call him on it. This sort of thing makes "expert" a bad word.]
Or, particularly, the need for them. Let it be noted that I firmly agree with such need. The ongoing process of restraining the executive is not to be taken for mere partisan ends, assumptions and snide comments by some aside. A cynical and/or harmful approach on either side hinders this end. Surely, historically, the process is messy. But, the end should be some positive result. An investigation tempered by the opposition, but one with useful results.
Would not the shared sentiments expressed in the essay suggest such an end? Or, must we not only look at the assumed beliefs of both sides, but both sides willingness to actually live out such beliefs? If one feels bad while hurting others, it is of only limited value to the harmed. This apparently is what we are supposed to hang on here ... consider the "WINOs" attacking by Talking Points Memo aka "waverers in name only" on the occupation. All talk. All hat, no cattle. IOW, the essay is wrong ... on some core level, the failure to carry out principles held makes one side rather different from the other. And, practice has shown that even when Dems are in control (including in 1980s and early '90s), they still uphold neutral principles more than the other side did when control shifted.
Republicans will at some point, I think, realize the need to move on in this respect. This probably will leave a lot to be desired, of course, partially examining why I will not be joining the party any time soon. Still, as with Ike's acceptance of the New Deal, future success will require some move toward hedging of Bushian philosophy. Some common ground, as expressed in the essay. A Democratic President will help this process. It must be said that it is not present now. Not when even assumed statespersons in the party are in lockstep in promotion of administration ends.
Until each side is willing to play somewhat fair, this common ground will be hard to imagine. Politics will always be messy; it need not be this bad. Like a struggling farmer during the Depression, we have seen the reality of degrees of bad. So, even if divided government is ideal, will we really be able to trust it in '09? I guess the Roberts Court will underline the limits of united government, as will the Blue Dogs in Congress. Thus, in practice, at least the Senate will probably remain only quasi-Democrat. I simply have my doubts if enough net seats will change hands to make the difference. In fact, who knows about the House. But, it really is a bit too early to tell.
Anyway, a government we can actually believe in and trust will be a primary issue, or should be, in the next election. Or, rather, in 2008. November 2007 will be a breather, I guess.
---
* Also in the news, other than Jenna's engagement to a Rovian, we have a class action by NYC beggars. When I first read of this, I wondered if this meant people would have an option to hand out governmental vouchers to beggars on the subway (would the fake candy sellers count?), or if they would pay some in kind?