|
Democracy,
Soviet Style
May 31, 2002
By Patrick Ennis
In the late 1980's, Soviet Premier Mikhail Gorbachev introduced
a new word to the world's vocabulary. The word was glasnost,
the Russian word for openness. The famously closed and repressive
Soviet state became less so, to the elation of western leaders
and media, who hailed "Gorby" as a bold and courageous reformer,
and to the consternation of old-school Soviet Communist hardliners.
This affront to traditional Soviet orthodoxy led to an attempted
coup by these hardliners in 1991, and the new policy of openness
led to the collapse of the Warsaw Pact, the reunification
of Germany, and finally the dissolution of the Soviet Union
itself into a loose confederation of autonomous republics.
Gorbachev himself, who won a Nobel Peace Prize in 1990, is
much more fondly remembered outside his own country than within
it. One of the most important lessons that can be learned
from the ordeal of Gorbachev and the Soviet foray into openness
is that, well, openness has consequences. Had Gorbachev not
insisted on opening the once totalitarian regime to scrutiny
and criticism, in effect modeling himself more along the lines
of hardline predecessors Nikita Kruschev and Leonid Brezhnev,
the U.S.S.R, might still exist, as a superpower and as a major
player on the world stage. And Gorbachev himself probably
would still be relevant, instead of just a minor footnote
in the history of the late 20th century, fading quickly from
memory.
One that seems to have taken this lesson to heart is our
own Dear Leader, president George W. Bush, who in any case
often seems nostalgic for the cold war era. Perhaps we should
not be surprised.
Back in August, 1999, before the GOP primaries even began,
Bush was asked by a reporter from the Dallas Morning News
whether he had ever used illegal drugs. He famously waffled,
and to this day has never provided any direct answer. Then
there was his arrest for driving under the influence of alcohol
in 1976, an incident which never would have seen the light
of day if not for the diligence and boldness of a journalist
at a Fox affiliate in Maine, where the incident happened,
whom rumor has it is now reporting on penguin migrations from
a frigid outpost in Antarctica. At this revelation, he demonstrated
his skill at damage control by glibly -- if a bit sheepishly
-- telling reporters that he had kept it private for the sake
of his daughters. How convenient, if ineffective, as their
behavior since his inauguration indicates. So much for openness.
But Gorby showed us where that can lead.
After having the presidency controversially bestowed upon
him, for reasons that may never be fully revealed, by a preponderance
of Supreme Court justices in Dec. 2000, Bush set about making
his cabinet selections. While drawing well-deserved praise
from the press for the racial and ethnic diversity of his
choices, it was also noted that loyalty appeared to be a key
criteria. Several picks had experience in the administrations
of his father, pres. George H.W. Bush, and/or in his father's
predecessor, conservative icon Ronald Reagan. Dubya himself,
who as an unofficial troubleshooting aide to his father was
known to complain bitterly about leaks, apparently had learned
from that experience as well about the utility of keeping
secrets.
Since Sept. 11, which so far is and shall likely remain the
defining event of the reign of George II, there has been the
Enron debacle, involving the administration's outright refusal
to make public the minutes of energy policy meetings attended
by Enron officials, prompting an as yet unresolved lawsuit
by the Government Accounting Office. Vice President Cheney
defended the stonewall, saying the intent was to restore some
executive authority which has been allowed to erode in recent
administrations. Nice, subtle dodge, Mr. Vice-President. If
anyone else asks, just refer them to the Federal Bureau of
None-Of-Your-Damn-Business.
More recently, we have the revelation that the administration
had indeed received indications that al-Qaeda may be planning
hijackings of American commercial aircraft prior to Sept.
11, news that might have been much more easily explained had
it not been sat on for 8 months after the attacks, an attempt
at secrecy that prompted even USA Today's milquetoast moderate
Walter Shapiro to criticize as unnecessary and suggestive.
Referring to Iraq and its president, Saddam Hussein, on the
possibility of the return of international arms inspectors
to that country to search for evidence of chemical, nuclear,
and biological weapons programs, Bush said "We expect there
to be openness. People who have something to hide make us
nervous". But who was the last American president to be so
obsessed with keeping so much of the public's business from
the public's scrutiny? Indeed, his infamous and mistakenly
public characterization of New York Times reporter Adam Clymer,
in an aside to Cheney when he thought the microphone was off,
as a "major league asshole" may have stemmed from the former's
attempt to glean information from him, which is apparently
like trying to get cash donations for Planned Parenthood out
of Pat Robertson.
He and his disturbingly pious Attorney General, John Ashcroft,
have even set up Soviet style gulags for suspected al-Qaeda
terrorists at a naval base in Cuba, which now hosts "guests"
from more than 30 countries and where media access is ruthlessly
controlled. There is no doubt; this particular president would
more admire Kruschev than Gorbachev, whom he would probably
deride as a bleeding-heart liberal. But don't expect him to
tell you that, either.
The White House is often referred to as "The People's House".
Of course, it was built with and is maintained with public
funds, and its ostensible purpose is the administration of
the nation's business, a most public mission. If this is the
rationale used for the demands for public accountability of
Bill Clinton's antics in the Oval Office, even those he himself
may have considered private, fine. But let's have no double
standards. We understand that some secrets need to be kept
in name of national security, but this is a very broad category
that is all too easy use as a convenient rug under which to
sweep any and all potentially embarrassing dirt. Such an exploitation
would not only be unworthy of a great people and a great nation,
but necessarily leads to suspicion over time.
And the sky-high approval ratings generated by a sense of
urgency and need for unity in the wake of Sept. 11 will not
prevent that forever. Already, Democratic congressional critics
Dennis Kucinich and Cynthia McKinney, who questioned the president
when it was sheer heresy to do so, see their stock on the
rise. And this obsession with secrecy, coupled with a press
emboldened by the revelation of the pre-Sept. 11 hijacking
warnings, will only add more fuel to the fire.
But Bush is the type of president who would prefer the kind
of code of silence found in corrupt police departments and
in the mafia to Gorbachev-style glasnost.
Patrick Ennis: articulating the perspective of the liberal,
secular midwestern underclass because, frankly, somebody's
got to.
|
