In his diary Tuesday, "White House orders 5% spending cuts on top of discretionary spending freeze" Chris wrote:
I am not going to pretend that I live inside the head of President Obama and his advisors, and thus understand their rationale for this move. Maybe they are doing it because they think it will help Democratic electoral chances. Maybe they actually think it is good policy. Maybe it is some combination of both.
The rationale, however, does not matter. We are not engaged in a debate about what goes on inside the minds of the leading figures in the administration, including Obama himself. What does matter is that this move will cost jobs in the middle of an ongoing employment crisis. Not only will this add to widespread hardship in this country, but it will have negative effects on the Democratic electoral position exceeding whatever minimal media optics the Obama administration will receive from this move.
On one level this is perfectly correct. What really matters is not what politicians think or say, but what they do, and the results their actions produce. But on another level, it matters enormously that we have no idea why Obama says and does the things he does. After all, the basis of democracy is that people deliberate and decide on what they will do collectively in the way of self-government. Proper deliberation depends upon open presentation of all the facts and arguments available. When things are hidden, deliberation is hindered, at the very least, if not corrupted, and ultimately destroyed. Leaders who honestly explain their actions foster democracy, whether one agrees with their positions or not. Leaders hide or deceive their motives and reasoning undermine democracy, even if one agrees with their actions.
This was one of the most central problems with the Bush Administration. One could quibble endlessly, splitting hairs over whether Bush lied about WMDs in Iraq, for example. Did he know for certain that what he said was not true? But all that was beside the point, as Lakoff pointed out in arguing that the basic issue was betrayal of trust, and as former federal prosecutor Elizabeth de la Vega pointed out in arguing that Bush should be impeached for perpetrating fraud in taking us to war.
Outright lying is just one of many ways that a government can erode the foundations of democratic legitimacy, and restoring that legitimacy was one of the most powerful motivations there was for ending the Bush regime. It was one of the most fundamental mandates that was bestowed on Barack Obama with his election--and it is a mandate that he has fundamentally ignored. Indeed, it is a mandate that he has betrayed.
To take just one example--albeit a very large, very central, very ugly one--consider Glenn Greenwald's column from the same day, "A growing part of the Obama legacy", in which he wrote:
|
