The Great Communicator

Tuesday marked the 20th anniversary of Ronald Reagan's "Tear Down this Wall" speech in Berlin. The speech has been argued to have focused attention on the Soviet Union and contributed to a series of events that led to the actual tearing down of the wall two years later.

It is one of the better examples of presidential oratory in the past few decades.

Here's commentary:

20 Years After "Tear Down This Wall"
Seizing the Moment
The speech itself.

The American Freedom Agenda

In response to concerns about concentrated executive powers, a group of prominent conservatives has created the American Freedom Agenda to, in their words, "restore the Constitution’s checks and balances as enshrined by the Founding Fathers."

The group suggests that Mitt Romney-and probably the bulk of the announced presidential candidates-are ignorant of the checks and balances and the protections from government abuses written into the Constitution.

With that in mind I shouldn't be so hard on my students for also being ignorant of this stuff also. Or maybe I should ramp it up.

By the way--they like our boy Ron Paul.

Darkening the Door

This comment by Tom Tancredo at last night's Republican debate could prove problematic for President Bush's ability to sustain even the low levels of popularity he maintains now:

“Some time ago, 2003, I think it was, that I got a call from
Karl Rove who told me that because of my criticism of the
president, I should never darken the doorstep of the
White House,” he said.

He added, “As president, I would have to tell George
Bush exactly the same thing that Karl Rove told me”
because he was so disappointed in various aspects of
the President’s program, including education and the
prescription drug bureaucracy, as well as immigration
reform.

The little support the president has comes from Republicans who feel they must support their party leader. Hearing leaders of the party openly criticize the president--and not be criticized in turn--may allow them to feel free to disapprove of him also.

Update (6-8-07): Today's Gallup Poll update shows that the President's approval rate has continued to slip overall, and also among Republicans. In mid-April 76% of Republicans approved of his job performance, the poll shows that this figure has slipped to 70%. It's still high, but it should be high since it's the President's party. It's worth noting that these figure were collected prior to the debate and Tancredo's comments, but the general environment may be changing and Republicans may feel more free to speak ill of Mr. Bush.

Secrecy and the VP

Democracies want it all. They want accountability and effective government.

But accountability requires transparency, which means that we need to know who does what so they can be held responsible for the results, and effective government sometimes requires that decision makers be given the opportunity to get confidential advice from sources that know they will remain confidential. The concept is called executive privilege and it has a long history in the United States.

The Vice President continues to argue that he must be able to keep his visitor logs secret, so he can preserve the confidentiality he need to get reasonable advice.

The White House calls this "a matter of principle, saying in a court declaration that it is aimed at preserving "the effective functioning of the vice presidency under the Constitution." The group Citizens for Responsible Ethics in Washington disagrees and is fighting to make this information public. The question is whether there is something illegal going on or if the Vice President simply likes doing things in private.

The Rule of Law

Apparently it's whatever the president says it is.

The Food Safety Czar

I posted below about recent president's appointments of "czars" to help streamline policy implementation in some area of need. I promised a full list of the various types of czars we've had in the past 30 year (apparently Nixon appointed the first one: John Love-Energy Czar). I promised a full list, but have yet to deliver. Here's a brief list:

AIDS Czar
Drug Czar
Energy Czar
Health Care Czar
Intelligence Czar

I mention this because Bush has apparently named a Food Safety Czar in the wake of recent concerns about the food supply.

I don't know, it just doesn't have that ring. No shivers down the spine.

Here's some light reading on the subject: Ten Thousand Czars

Time Warner and the Postal Regulatory Commission

Postal rates will be going up soon, not just for first class postage, but for periodicals as well. But while the rates for large circulation magazines are only going up 10%, those for smaller magazines are going up 30%.

According to this story, Time Warner made the recommendations to the Postal Regulatory Commission who then used them to base their proposed changes to the Postal Services Board of Governors without public input.

Given that Time Warner owns People, Sports Illustrated, and a host of other top selling magazines, it certainly has an interest in keeping its postal rates down, but by working to raise that of its smaller competitors (allegedly) is it using insider connections to make the playing field uneven?

Is this agency capture?

The Attorney General and the Unitary Executive

Slate magazine has a habit of turning conventional wisdom on its head by presenting intriguing arguments why a consensus appraisals of events are wrong.

Here Dahlia Lithwick claims that Alberto Gonzalez--who most argued did horribly in his testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee--actually performed admirably, given the job he was sent to do.

She argues that he was not there to defend his actions in the firing of the attorneys, but to prop up the unitary executive theory by--between the lines--claiming that Congress has few powers to compel the executive branch to do anything, much less oversee how it handles personnel issues like who gets to hold on to a job in the Justice Department.

Here's a quote:

Gonzales' failure to even mount a defense; his posture of
barely tolerating congressional inquiries; his refusal to
concede that he owed the Senate any explanation or
any evidence; his refusal to even accept that he bore
some burden of proof—all of it tots up to a masterful
display of the perfect contempt felt by the Bush
executive branch for this Congress and its pretensions
of oversight. In the plainest sense, Gonzales elevated
the Bush legal doctrine of "Because I said so" into a
public spectacle.

President Bush's support of his testimony later in the day were therefore not the result of delusion, but cunning. Critics of the attorney general don't understand that they are playing different games under different sets of rules. . Perhaps the Senate should enlarge its focus beyond this simple personnel matter and look at the larger issue of expansive presidential power.

Political Forecast

The Accidental Blogger sees a parallel.

Mourner in Chief

One of the unofficial duties of the president.

War Czar, part 2

Regarding my post below, some commentators have wondered why we need a war czar when we have a commander in chief? Isn't it the president's job to coordinate military policy?

War Czar

Words like "czar" always make me nervous, especially when they are used to describe administration officials. The intent is to make it more likely that the official can get their designated job done by streamlining the bureaucratic system underlying the job. This has its benefits of course, but one person's efficiency is another's tyranny.

Past "czars" have been appointed over energy and drugs, but now a story has appeared in the Washington Post on the President's so far unsuccessful search for a war czar.

The anti-federalists were nervous about the single headed executive established in Article II of the Constitution because they thought it would lead to the development of a military-king, a czar if you will.

Were they right to be fearful? Is it a good sign that there have been no takers thus far? Or perhaps an ominous sign? What type of person is likely to take the job? Perhaps the story is intended to be a trial balloon that the administration will float up in order to determine whether the public will support the creation of the office. If the reaction is negative, they will pull support. This assumes that the administration cares about public opinion of course.

potus v bureaucracy

In 2302, section 2 we discussed the tension that often develops between the political appointees of the White House and the long time civil servants whose tenure in office overlaps several administrations. I fumbled for examples, but attorneygate provides some fresh ones.

Like the recent appointment of Rachel Paulose as U.S. Attorney for the district of Minnesota.