Whenever
the press attempts to define a new Presidency,
there
is a tendency to make comparisons with its
predecessors.
Aside from the obvious echoes of his father in
George
W. Bush’s wartime demeanor and choice of advisers,
there
have been evocations of others who came before,
sometimes
intentional and sometimes unconscious. In his
effort
to soften his party’s negative image with the slogan of
"compassionate
conservatism," there was more than a hint of
Clintonian
cleverness. In his retrograde economic policy, there
are almost
daily imitations of Reaganism at its worst.
But a parallel
to this administration’s obsession with secrecy
and hostility
to open government can only be found by looking
back much
further. The description that seems increasingly
and disturbingly
apt is Nixonian.
Last week
Mr. Bush signed a sweeping executive order that,
in the
name of national security, blatantly seeks to revoke the
Presidential
Records Act of 1978. That law, passed in
response
to the Watergate scandal and Nixon’s subsequent attempt to treat White
House
documents as his private property, granted scholars, journalists and other
citizens
reasonable access to such materials within 12 years after a President
departs
office. Both substantively and symbolically, it represents one of the most
important
reforms of the post-Nixon era.
Not coincidentally,
the first set of Presidential papers to be affected by the act are
those
of the Reagan administration, including the documents of a Vice President
named
George Bush and others involving former top officials who have returned
to
positions
of power this year. Ever since this administration took office in January,
it has
been maneuvering quietly to withhold 68,000 pages of confidential
communications
between Mr. Reagan and his staff which the National Archives
and the
Reagan Library had previously agreed to release.
Alberto
Gonzales, the White House counsel who drafted the executive order,
promptly
assured reporters that his purpose is not to cover up "embarrassing"
documents.
Ari Fleischer, the press secretary who announced it, told the press
corps
that the order merely creates an "orderly process" so that "more information
will be
forthcoming." It will, he said, "help people to get information" and was
designed
to "implement" the Presidential Records Act.
Like so
many of his other pronouncements, Mr. Fleischer’s description deserves
to
be treated
skeptically. To Bruce Craig, director of the National Coordinating
Committee
for the Promotion of History, a coalition of historians and archivists,
the clear
intent of Mr. Bush’s order is to undermine and virtually undo the act.
He
points
out that the order would set up huge bureaucratic obstacles, giving a former
President
or members of his family the right to veto any request and requiring
anyone
requesting certain kinds of sensitive papers to prove a "specific need"
for
them.
Both the present and former President would have to agree before such
sensitive
materials could be released, and if either said no, the only way to obtain
them would
be to go to court.
Mr. Craig
calls the order "a giant step backward," probably the "first in a series
of
executive
orders" that will restrict access to public documents and government
information.
In fact,
the pattern has already been established in this administration. Attorney
General
John Ashcroft recently instructed federal agencies to apply the most
restrictive
interpretation of the Freedom of Information Act, again supposedly for
national-security
reasons. That specious justification was not even broached when
Vice President
Dick Cheney withheld the most basic information from Congress
about
his Energy Task Force, a violation of fundamental democratic principles
for
which
he has escaped accountability.
Most Americans
will perhaps regard the Bush executive order as a trivial matter, of
little
or no concern at a time when the nation is struggling against murderous
enemies
abroad (and possibly at home). Yet as we ought to have learned during the
Cold War,
it is precisely at such moments that loyalty and patriotism require
resistance
to the curtailment of basic liberties. The President’s attempt to close
the
vault
on history has nothing to do with prosecuting the war against terrorism,
and
everything
to do with covering up embarrassments both past and future.
The American
people are fortunate that citizens like Mr. Craig and his coalition are
determined
to hold that vault open, in Congress if possible and in court if
necessary.
Their efforts are especially critical because other individuals and
institutions
are failing to uphold the responsibilities invested in them by the nation’s
founders.
The best-selling
celebrity historians haven’t said much about this outrage, even
though
they depend on access to public records. So far, the only significant
comment
on the Bush executive order in the mainstream press has come from the
Los Angeles
Times, which published a scathing editorial on Nov. 6. The other
national
newspapers and the fawning commentators have remained silent, too busy
burnishing
the President’s image to worry about his administration’s contempt for
their
profession.
These watchdogs
of freedom have deteriorated terribly since Tricky Dick’s
downfall.
Today they almost never bark, let alone bite.