The Bush Doctrine of Irresponsibility (and its Impact on the 2008 Presidential Campaign)

The news that George Bush commuted convicted perjurer Scooter Libby's jail sentence comes at the end of a long, long line of decisions taken by this President and his administration to avoid responsibility for their actions.

Some have suggested that President is a stubborn man.  If only.  As with the Libby pardon, the rules of law and accountability which govern the rest of us do not apply to Bush or members of his inner circle.  Earlier this Spring, we learned about efforts by the White House to get a incapacitated John Ashcroft, the then-Attorney General, to approve illegal-wiretapping from his hospital bed.  What first seemed like bad fiction quickly became another example of disregard for the law, the impact of which goes far beyond the case of Mr. Libby.

We now realize that a significant task awaits whomever is elected the next President.  For nearly eight years, our nation and the body politic has been subjected to repeated to the repeated trauma of illegal and irresponsible behavior from the White House.  Our reputation abroad and at home has suffered  dramatically.  The next President now faces not merely the enormous challenges of the day, but also the extraordinary task of restoring our faith in the office of the Presidency itself. 

As Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter learned a little more than a quarter century ago, the damage caused by a willfully irresponsible and illegal Presidency can impact the effectiveness of the next inhabitants of the White House.  In 2009, with the Supreme Court firmly in the hands right-wing ideologues, the next Congress (even a strongly Democratic Congress) will be and should be suspicious of any future President whose actions hint of broad power and authority.  In the past, such times produced Presidents who attempted to lead through consensus-building or a cooperative, genial style, which may have been palliative for the nation but hardly the kind of leadership which produced results.

And indeed, the issues of the day demand results.  Whether it's Iraq, the environment, the Middle East, energy, Africa, health care, or the failure to bring millions of people out of poverty in this country (and billions of people worldwide), the next American President can and must be a person of action.  Triangulation and process have their time and place.  But the sheer enormity of our challenges today -- and the uncertainity with which America now finds itself in the world -- suggests that consider something new among the many candidates, Democrat and Republican, who now seek the Presidency.

In addition to considering the usual list of important and not-so-important things (policy positions, fundraising prowess, haircuts), might we also ask which candidate can best lead when leadership itself is on the ropes? 

It's a difficult question to ask, and an even harder question to answer.  There is no simple test to administer, nor obvious question to ask.  The good news is, we have time.  We are only halfway thru to the first primaries and caucuses in this Presidential campaign.  There are easily five Democratic candidates and at least three (and maybe as many as five) Republicans who will have the money and staff to compete effectively for the remainder of the year.  Now it is up to us, the voters (particularly in Iowa and New Hampshire) to choose.  My hope is that we give ourselves the time to identify someone who can return the Presidency, and the nation, to responsibility.