[Near the end of last entry, I added a Digby post (h/t Glenn Greenwald) on the chance -- see voices like Chuck Schumer and Dianne Feinstein -- that Dems will see Gonzo leaving as enough, being sure to get promises that the next guy/gal will really be good, and probably, look less like a flunky. You know, someone like Colin Powell, or something. Will they ever learn?]
Michael Dorf supplies a balanced attack/commentary on Alberto Gonzales* in a recent column. It is a worthwhile effort to try to calmly look back and determine what general lessons we might learn, to live and learn. The process will also address common misstatements, the sort of misstatement that are so blatantly misguided that it tends to be some combination of intentional and self-delusion.** These are equally troublesome, especially when we have the responsibility not to take the "ignorance is bliss" path that seems more pleasing to many people (who wants to think about homelessness or even the well being of family members who we generally keep out of our minds?):
On Monday, Attorney General Gonzales announced that he will leave office next month. President Bush greeted the news with sadness, describing Gonzales as a faithful public servant whose "good name was dragged through the mud for political reasons."
The claim that Gonzales came under sustained critical scrutiny because of ordinary politics is absurd on its face. For one thing, even many Republicans in Congress repeatedly expressed skepticism about Gonzales's performance. For another, if simple politics were at work in the way the President claimed, Democrats would have been willy-nilly calling for the resignation of all Bush Administration officials. Democrats had no reason to single out Gonzales for criticism--no reason, that is, other than his performance.
But, it still is credible in some corners to speak of the "political" nature of the whole thing, and not in the general way in which all matters of public government is in some fashion "political." IOW, not political, but "partisan." This hits to the core of the problem, including the various allegations in general of violation of the Hatch Act that bars use of ordinary politics when dealing with ordinary civil servants ... the sort of thing that bars making campaign calls from the House Floor:
More importantly, if the allegation is true, that would represent a gross misuse of office. It is perfectly acceptable for Republicans and Democrats to have different law enforcement priorities. As I explained in an earlier column, however, it is completely unacceptable for a Democratic administration to distort those priorities by disproportionately targeting Republicans--or vice-versa--for partisan advantage. Beyond the partial evidence already made public, the allegation that Gonzales used the Justice Department in this illicit manner is credible precisely because, at every turn, he has made loyalty to President Bush and the Republican Party his top priority.
There also is the "contempt of Congress" problem, which comes in two -- if related -- forms. One, refusal to properly and truthfully answer proper questions and supply documents necessary for Congress to do its job. This leads to civil contempt of Congress, though its desire to actually demand redress in any real fashion other than "wah wah" is unclear. Two, a general contempt for the institution as a whole, a gaming of the system that in return puts them (the executive, but also members of Congress that help them) in disrepute.
The executive, and their head flunky Gonzo, furthers this via treating Congress as if they were prosecutors and had some sort of "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard to meet along with no right to demand something that might be incriminating. The net result is to add to the cloud over the Justice Department, even if (though one doubts it) there was no wrongdoing (other than this) going on:
These arguments are irrelevant because the heart of the firing scandal involves the allegation that U.S. Attorneys were fired because they refused to use the nation's law enforcement resources to target Democrats disproportionately to Republicans. It is not entirely clear whether this allegation is true, but that uncertainty itself results in part from the White House's failure to cooperate fully with the Congressional investigation.
And, we should not "misunderestimate" Gonzo either by just calling him a doofus:
More broadly, just as President Bush sometimes benefits from people, in his own memorable phrase, "misunderestimating" him--that is, assuming he's merely a genial fool rather than a shrewd ideologue--so too Gonzales may have benefited from his image as an incompetent flunky. In fact, Gonzales has been a hard-core ideologue.
Ultimately, the Justice Department, like the executive branch as a whole goes on (I still get my mail, crimes are prosecuted, etc.) even with such shoddy leadership, but:
Nonetheless, leadership matters. Already documents have surfaced showing that plum jobs in the Bush Justice Department have gone to Republican loyalists, rather than to the most highly qualified attorneys (many of whom will happen to be Republicans). That approach has undermined the noble tradition of professionalism in the Justice Department. The next Attorney General--whoever he or she is--should, on day one, reaffirm the Department's commitment to norms of professionalism.
Or, the best we can get in the current climate. The overall lesson learnt should be a negative one: what not to do if one wants a credible Justice Department. A warning for 2009, but one that should be remembered until then as well. Utopia means "nowhere," but there are different levels of imperfection.
---
* A comment to a post over at Talking Points Memo might be the best one other than the statement that he thinks "the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth" are three different things. The comment agreed with the statement by Bush that Congress wrongly impugned on the good name of Alberto Gonzales. It is a perfectly good name, and not it is ridiculed by people like myself ("Gonzo"). I'd add it is perfectly logical to have such a name when you are the attorney general. Likewise, Bush in various ways is obscene. So, his name is likewise proper, though Molly Ivins favored "Shrub."
** When I'm in a certain frame of mind, this thing annoys me. For instance, when the "Macaca" business arose (remember that?), one person claimed Republicans are unjustly targeted for that sort of thing. After all, Jesse Jackson did not get any beef for his anti-Jew comments from Dems (oh?), and Sen. Dodd complimented Sen. Byrd (who belonged to the Klan once and opposed the Civil Rights Act) on some historical vote.
Is this not like Sen. Lott wishing Strom Thurmond won the presidency in 1948? The amount of baggage Lott vis-a-vis Dodd alone makes the comparison absurd. And,this from someone who appears to be generally rational. But, without perspective, apparently. Perspective and context is for French loving losers anyway.