A Stumble a Day ...
EDITORIAL, NYTimes on
the Web, March 15, 2006
Every second-term presidency tends to
get tired and falter a bit. But these days, when so many big things are
going so very wrong, smaller errors seem like an echo of overall ineptitude.
And since President Bush has convinced Americans that we live in a permanent
state of threat from evildoers abroad, the bumbling takes on a more ominous
note.
This page opposes the death penalty, so we're not going to be upset if federal
prosecutors fail to execute Zacarias Moussaoui on conspiracy charges related to
Sept. 11, and have to settle for sending him to jail for life. But it's
unnerving that the setback for the prosecution was due to the incredible
misbehavior of one of the government lawyers, a member of the Transportation
Security Administration. The lawyer, Carla Martin, violated a court order
and drew down the wrath of the presiding judge by attempting to coach via e-mail
some witnesses expected to testify — in a manner that a first-year law student
should have known was a very, very bad idea. It may be irrelevant that Ms.
Martin's main job is as an aviation security expert, but it doesn't make us feel
any better.
Minor flare-ups of bad news are also much more disturbing when they remind us of
the administration's history of rewarding party loyalists and campaign workers
with jobs that are far above their level of competence. Claude Allen, who
recently resigned as the president's domestic policy adviser, was arrested in a
bizarre case involving a scheme to collect refunds from stores for merchandise
he had never purchased, from a home theater system to an item worth only $2.50.
The allegations about Mr. Allen might have been classified as a sad tale of a
White House official who fell victim to pressure or overwork, had it not been
for the fact that the Bush administration had also nominated him for a seat on
the United States Court of Appeals despite a résumé that's exceedingly thin on
legal experience.
The founding fathers understood that there would be times in American history
when the country lost confidence in the judgment of the president.
Congress and the courts are supposed to fill the gap. But the system of
checks and balances is a safety net that doesn't feel particularly sturdy at
present. The administration seems determined to cut off legitimate court
scrutiny, and the Republicans who dominate the House and Senate generally
intervene only to change the rules so Mr. Bush can do whatever he wants.
(If the current Congress had been called on to intervene in the case of Mr.
Allen, it would probably have tried to legalize shoplifting.)
The Democratic Party is not exactly the last word in prescience, but even the
Democrats have put their finger on the mood of the moment, focusing on the theme
of administrative incompetence. They're striking the right note, but it's
not a tune we can afford to listen to for the next three years.
|
