Common Sense and Politics - The Odd Couple

The raging controversy regarding US Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez and the US Senate is not an atypical circus event in the Nation’s Capitol. That is not to say that the events are made less significant by their theatricality. The Senate majority was able to indirectly express their symbolic “no confidence” in Gonzalez by a 53-38 margin. However, that vote was 2 short of the 60 votes required to gain cloture and send the measure to the floor for full debate. In effect, the GOP senators were successful in protecting Gonzalez from a full public airing of the misconduct and incompetence of his leadership of the Justice Department. The GOP faithful would not register their votes as supportive of Gonzalez, a step that would be extremely risky under the circumstances. Instead, they characterized the "no confidence" vote as non-binding and meaningless, since President Bush would not be obligated to take any action based upon the outcome of the vote.

The objective of the Democrats was to create an historic precedent by invoking a public censure of a Cabinet official. A rare occurrence in the history of the nation, it would represent a very significant step. The Democrats also sought to maneuver the GOP senators into casting a public vote representing either an affirmation or rejection of Gonzalez as the Chief Legal Officer of the nation. Of course, a lot of time and energy is spent by legislators in the Capitol attempting to avoid taking a public position on important public policy issues. While the GOP senators can attempt to “spin” the vote results as a purely procedural measure, it can still be effectively used by Democratic candidates to portray GOP senators who voted to block debate as a vote to protect the Attorney General. This latter agenda was properly characterized as “political,” but oddly makes common sense as well. The public and senatorial constituencies deserve to know where their elected representative stands on such an important issue. President Bush, the archetype oppositional and combative personality, has already stated publicly supports Gonzalez and stands by their friendship. More importantly, he will not allow the Senate to decide who is fit to serve in his Administration. Prior examples like Karl Rove and Scooter Libby show that even illegal conduct cannot force Bush to sack one of his loyal minions.

However, “political” was not always considered synonymous with bad. In its original sense, a political act is the effectuation of policy or purpose that furthers the will of the body politic. It is the engine that drives our system of government. The current usage of the term, however, has come to denote venal and self-serving behavior that distorts and abuses the public trust. In its original context, the “political” act of expressing “no confidence” in the Attorney General is a useful and important expression aiding the operation of the government. The Senate has expressed a majority opinion that it lacks faith and confidence in the integrity and competence of Alberto Gonzalez. Consequently, every action advanced by the Justice Department from this point forward bears the stigma attached to the distrust that the Senate holds regarding the competence and integrity of Gonzalez motives.

Keep in mind also that the vote of no confidence was not borne of partisan warfare, but instead based upon actions by Gonzalez that were viewed by members of both parties as of doubtful legality and unquestionably unethical. Members of the GOP have called for Gonzalez to step down. Thus, the “protection” of Gonzalez was a partisan endeavor, but the rebuke was not. In that sense, the Democrats have gained a campaign advantage over GOP incumbents. Any GOP candidate who voted to prevent debate on the “no confidence” measure can be properly cast as having sided with President Bush and supportive of the record of Gonzalez. That could be dangerous ground for a candidate, absent some miraculous recovery by Bush in the remaining months of his term.

As a practical matter, and based upon common sense, Alberto should resign. There is little question that nothing other than ego keeps him in his position. He cannot effectively lead the Justice Department. Many of the most talented lawyers within the management ranks of the agency have either resigned or tried to distance themselves from the Attorney General. Others with relatively lesser credentials have been elevated to positions of authority because of their political loyalty rather than their acumen or demonstrated qualifications. When former officials believe that they must demand immunity in order to testify under oath before Congress regarding their actions and communications with Gonzalez, common sense should dictate a departure of the Attorney General for the good of the Justice Department and the nation. However, the ethos of the Bush Administration has consistently placed personal power, arrogance and deceitful manipulation over the public welfare and effective ethical government.

President Bush has been informed by leaders of his own party that he has lost all credibility with Congress and the American people. Alberto Gonzalez is, if possible, in a position of even lower esteem. Yet both have vowed to stay the course. Sen. Charles Schumer, a sponsor of the “no confidence” resolution, stated: “When a majority of the Senate votes no confidence in a cabinet officer, it says a lot. He ought to have the decency himself to resign. Clearly, he is not up to the job.” Gonzalez rebuffed such criticism and stated that he intends to: “be focusing on what the American people expect of the attorney general of the United States and this great Department of Justice.” If that is true, it will perhaps be the first time in his tenure he will be doing so.