Wizblog

The Latest Lament

Bush is now a "control freak", squashing dissent and eliminating debate. John Podhoretz examines this latest beltway establishment meme:

There's no question that "healthy debate" is an important part of every serious enterprise. But let's not beat around the Bush. When these characters talk about the need for "debate," they mean one thing and one thing only: They fear Bush won't be forced to take account of opinions and judgments they like and will instead fall back on opinions and judgments he likes.

Here's the thing: We Americans elected him because we want him to exercise his judgment. We elected him to serve as the steward of our interests and the representative of our views. What we Americans know, based on his campaign for re-election, is what he stands for, what he believes, what he's done and what he says he'll do.

He was not elected to provide a forum for the healthy debate of Colin Powell's views. If he chooses to listen to Powell, that's his right and privilege. But it is equally his right and privilege - under the provisions of our system, which allows him to fire anybody he chooses from a political appointment to the executive branch of the U.S. government - not to listen to Colin Powell.

Nor must he listen to the views of E.J. Dionne, may the blessed God be thanked. That goes double for the views of David ("I'll work for anybody") Gergen.

And he is almost obliged to ignore the views of John Kerry, despite the fact that Kerry received 57 million votes on Nov. 2, because to do so would be a violation of the compact he made with the 61.06 million people who voted for him.

There is one crucial way, though, in which he must listen to John Kerry. And that is when Kerry expresses his views officially in the U.S. Senate by voting on legislation (when he bothers to do so, that is).

In a recent post to The Corner, Jonah Goldberg adds his thoughts:

I certainly agree that getting honest advice and opposing points of view is worthwhile. But this whole mini-scandal strikes me as complete bad faith. If Bush needs more dissenters, why isn't anyone clamoring for cabinet secretaries who are more hawkish, not less? More free market, not less? The answer is that the New York Times and New Republic don't think Bush should hire more dissenters, he should hire more people who agree with the New York Times and the New Republic.

By the way, where was the clamor for more dissenters in the Clinton administration? I don't recall it. I do recall that when Donna Shalala timidly mentioned that she was troubled by Clinton's behavior with Monica Lewinsky, she was browbeaten by Clinton. I do recall Clinton bullying Abigail Thernstrom, too. I do remember that Bill Clinton refused to meet with the head of the CIA because Jim Woolsey "dissented." If you read Rich Lowry's book, you'll know that Clinton basically avoided working with the FBI because he couldn't stand Louis Freeh. Yes, this was the more mature and sensible way of dealing with subordinates.