Just below, this post will remind you of one of the most blatant acts of sandbagging a government lawsuit to the benefit of of the an industry (tobacco) that was part of the Republican coalition. The fact that the case isn’t better known testifies to the smog of politicization cases that has blighted the Bush administration’s reputation.
But first, with Democrats enjoying their victory lap as Atty. Gen. Alberto Gonzales heads for Texas, hot on the heels of Karl Rove, let’s raise the question: Is this the most politicized administration in history?
Skipping the naive act
Every White House is intensely politicized. Seriously assessing whether this one set a new record high will take some time and distance. But the question above can be raised based on some of the established cases of imbuing its policies and practices with its goal of winning all future elections for Republicans, rewarding its political friends and punishing or overruling those who strayed, for example:
- This is a White House in which a political dirty trickster (Rove has always denied responsibility for a push poll in the 2000 South Carolina primary campaign implying that John McCain had fathered an illegitimate black child; these kind of tactics appear in many Rove campaigns) became the president’s top aide.
Rove then adopted a practice of giving presentations, in election years, for officials from executive branch agencies, “to outline White House campaign priorities, review polling data and, on occasion, call attention to tight House, Senate and gubernatorial races that could be affected by regulatory action.”- At first, in keeping with tradition, the Departments of Defense and Justice were spared the political briefings. But team Bush soon demonstrated its willingness to politicize defense and intelligence matters, as in the treatment of Gen. Eric Shinseki, who was “vilified, then marginalized by the Bush administration” for saying in 2003, correctly as it turned out, that the occupation of Iraq would require more troops.
- A top White House economic advisor (Lawrence Lindsay) was fired soon after he gave a public estimate of the possible cost of the Iraq warthat was higher (and, it turned out, more realistic) than the administration’s lowball figure. Scientists, economists, even the surgeon general have told of being muzzled and dissed for taking politically incorrect positions.
Justice Denied
The Justice Department has not always aspired to be above politics. Pres. Warren G. Harding (that’s him at right, on the right, and my daughter cannot believe that he was considered a heartthrob in 1920) appointed Harry Daugherty, his campaign manager, a hack and quite likely a crook (that’s him to the left of heartthrob Harding), as his AG. (Daugherty resigned while under Senate investigate for a kickback scheme involving bootleggers, but he wasn’t convicted of anything, and, one must add, the same can be said of Rove and Gonzales.)
It’s also true that when Bobby Kennedy was attorney general under his brother, he was a political operative and was chosen more for his family ties than his resume. But for much of recent political history, the nation’s top law enforcement official has at least aspired to keep some distance from politics. It’s worth noting that the Clinton White House was furious with Attorney General Janet Reno because of her political independence, but shrank from firing her to avoid the appearance of politicizing justice.
Gonzales was always at the crony end of the AG spectrum, a Bush loyalist and family retainer who could not seem to imagine any limitations on the executive authority. His record as a politicizer stems mostly from the immaculately conceived list of U.S. attorneys who were fired or slated to be fired for reasons that cannot be spoken but which, we were assured by Gonzales himself, were not inappropriately political.
(Minnesotans will note that the eminently qualified U.S. Attorney Tom Heffelfinger somehow got on a list for dismissal, although he left before being fired. None of the witnesses who have testified on the matter, including Gonzales have confessed to putting him on the list, nor given any reason for him being there except for Monica Goodling, who said she recalled hearing some complaints about Heffelfinger being too interested in the legal rights of Indians.)
A politicization smoking gun
But every time I come across a reference to this humdinger of a 2005 politicization, I ask myself why it isn’t more famous. My theory is it got lost because it didn’t involve a fired U.S. attorney.
Sharon Y. Eubanks, 22-year non-political Justice Department attorney, headed a team that prosecuted a civil racketeering case against the tobacco industry. The theory of the case was that the industry had conspired to conceal what it knew about the health effects of smoking. It had begun under the Clinton administration and the trial concluded in 2005, shortly after Gonzales became AG.
As Eubanks prepared for the last stage of the trial, her political-appointee superiors ordered a few changes in her case, to wit:
Reduce the government’s recommended penalty from $130 billion to $10 billion, drop the suggestion that the court remove from their corporate positions some of the tobacco executives who had participated in the cover-up, and talk some of the government’s expert witnesses into softening their damning testimony.
The three high-ranking Gonzales subordinates (if you want the names and their explanations, they’re in here), have not denied doing this. They also rewrote Eubanks’ closing statement to the court and ordered her to read it verbatim.
In the end, the court ruled that the industry had conspiring to conceal from the public what it knew about the harmful effects of smoking, but the judge didn’t adopt even the government’s reduced recommendation for a multi-billion-dollar judgment to fund smoking cessation programs.
In an interview on Fox News, anchorman Chris Wallace suggested the judge’s ruling shows Eubanks’ superiors had been correct in ordering her to reduce the demand. She replied that the trial judge’s ruling was influenced by the other changes that were ordered in her case, such as the rewritten closing argument.
Wallace also noted that the Justice Department’s Office of Professional Responsibility reviewed the matter and concluded that the orders given to Eubanks ”were not influenced by any political considerations.” Eubanks said the OPR is not independent of the political chain of command.
Eubanks, who served under four presidents, said she had never seen such blatant political interference in a case. She left the department soon after.
In the Fox interview, Eubanks declined to speculate on what motivated her bosses, other than to call it political. The tobacco industry overwhelmingly gives its financial and other political support to Republican candidates. Part of the case for a new level of politicization during the Bush era is the evidence that industries that are part of the Republican coalition were given enormous influence over regulatory and other government policies affecting their interests.
Of course, not to overlook the part of this that is normal, every administration does favors for its friends and supporters. The question is whether the favors are as frequent, as big and as blatant.
What think?
It was established long about Watergate that a high degree of independence was essential to the AG’s office. A body of congressional oversight legislation was enacted to supposedly provide this.
It turns out that it doesn’t work, and I don’t see why anyone is particularly surprised by this. The AG’s boss is the President.
There is a reason that all 50 states elect the AG separately, and I think we all understand this wisdom now. Perhaps it is time to trim the imperial power of the presidency by modifying the national constitution to incorporate the accumulated wisdom of 50 state.
I recall the Supreme Court’s decision about slaves being property that required a civil war to correct.
I recall the “packing” of the Supreme Court in the thirties, after staunchly political justices quashed one New Deal program after another.
I recall the intervention of the Justice Department in the civil rights disputes of the sixties.
I believe the Justice Department is and has always been an arm of the administration. They choose what they want to encourage or persecute, and the courts are supposed to decide if they are correct. But the courts are politically oriented as well, as local, state, and federal judiciaries constantly prove. (Judges who want to be allowed to campaign like politicians are an indication as well.)
So is the current Justice Department more politically influenced than under prior administrations? I don’t think so. And I don’t happen to think that is a bad thing, either. Not if we are to be a government “of the people, for the people, and by the people.” Which is exactly what is meant by “it’s politicized” in the broadest sense of the term.
And my opinion holds whether “my” folks are in power or not.
I read the Court of Appeals’ opinion from 2005 which states that disgorgement of past profits was not a remedy available in a racketeering case so the case for political interference by superiors is questionable. Better question maybe whether they tried to get the S.Ct. to hear the case because it is very like a case involving Standard Oil in the early 20th century where Judge Mountain Landis imposed a $100+ million fine for rebating against the company that John D. Rockefeller swore he would never pay and sure enough the Court of Appeals lowered the fine to about $30 million. A slap on the wrist for Rockefeller.
Having said that I think this administration is by far the most politicized and corrupt administration within the memory of most living people. Every administration that it is in competition with though is a Republican one: Harding, Grant, Harrison all come to mind. I’m not sure even these administrations can match the present one.
Where the Bush administration really stands out I think is in callously using its power to inflict massive and widespread suffering on innocent people. Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, illegal renditions and the whole senseless and illegal Iraq War. In the past, it was just leading Republicans who could inflict smaller damage with strikebreakers against strikers and their families. Now they use the government and it’s much worse. Most people when asked directly would say that the ends never justifies the means even where you think the ends are good and worthwhile. The Bush administration stands for using any means of achieving the end of a permanent Republican controlled government: endless one party rule
By the way for John I, the Supreme Court was never “packed” by Roosevelt. Roosevelt abandoned his court packing plan to increase the number of justices because of the famous “switch in time” by Justice Roberts and Charles Highes who overruled the “substantive due process doctrine” used to void various New Deal programs.
I think you avoid answering the question of whether this administration has been “politicized” by substituting “politically influenced.” Every elected politician appoints political people. But I think there is a difference between a person appointed for political reasons and “politicization”. “Politicization” means, I think, a deliberate attempt to manipulate and control specific discretionary decision making by appointed officials for political goals as opposed to achieving the goals of enforcing or administering the law. While the Justice department has always been an “arm of the administration”, not all DOJ officials have been political appointees. Even though US District Attorneys are “political appointees”, I have never heard any case where the President or some other higher elected official has used the power to appoint or remove for the specific reason that the US attorney did not bring a case to achieve a political objective. No prior administration has used its power to actually influence decisions whether to enforce the law. When US Attorneys are removed for not bringing phoney voting rights cases against the administration’s political opponents, they have crossed a very bright line.
Don’t forget, Vince Gold, Invasion of the Party Snatchers author, points out Ashcroft was the only AG in history to step down as AG and then register as a lobbyist. Registration was not always required so it’s not entirely a valid sampling. Gold quotes his idol, Goldwater, on would he become a lobbyist after going into the private sector [loosing an election], “I’m too old to be a pimp.”
Karl Rove has always impressed me as someone who would look perfectly normal with a barcode tattoo on his forehead. Mark of the Beast and all. Or not. But just nice suit, smiirky smarmy smile, barcode. It would all look in place and proper for Rove.
Bobby Kennedy never advocated torture but he was a Joe McCarthy staffer, so who’s to say.
I still think Ashcroft was worse. This guy is a complete hack. Ashcroft was a believer on a mission.
Joneric,
Regarding “packing”, we called it that at the time, revisionist historians now notwithstanding. I still do, thank you. Please don’t suggest it did not happen.
Regarding “politicized”, I refer you t o my post:”Which is exactly what is meant by “it’s politicized” in the broadest sense of the term.” I assume you disagree.
Regarding motives for the hit list, I prefer to stay with what is known, rather than go with the spin from either side.
Regarding punishing innocent persons, the McCarthy era treatment of those with connections to the communist party come to mind. And the Japanese interned during WW-II. And the treatment of the “Okies” in the depression, with government knowledge. And the treatment of persons of Germanic descent in WW-I. And the victims of the “March to the Sea” in the Civil War. And the Tories after the Revolution. And even today, the treatment of those who do not meet the “politically correct” standards of (principally) left leaning politicians. I suggest balanced reporting presents a more moderate picture of the history of abuses, and of the acts of the current administration.
Upon reflection, I think the treatment of the civil rights marchers and activists in the sixties should also be added to my list.
John E Iacono: I don’t know if I disagree with your definition of “politicization” but it sounds to me that in your opinion, all actions taken by politicians elected to office by a majority vote are “politicized” by definition because they are political. If that’s true than nobody has any rights under the constitution because an elected official’s actions, like the President’s can never be questioned by an unelected judicial official and for that matter a politician can never be be guilty of a crime while in office, like accepting bribes. But you tell me. I proposed a definition of “politicization” in my comment. Do you disagree with that and how?
I appreciate your view about the infliction of punishment upon innocent persons. I can agree with you that people in this country have suffered a lot by political decisions. You might want to add the genocide of the Indians to the list and the large scalle loss of life in the Vietnam War in which case I think you would have political actions which exceed the magnitude of innocent suffering in the war on Iraq. But I won’t quibble with your list. I did not say this administration was the most politicized in history. I said it was the most politicized in the memory of living persons and I think has done the most damage on purpose for very bad and selfish reasons. My personal view is that as bad and politicized as the Vietnam War was, I think the leaders mostly acted out of what they believed was the right thing to do. I will keep an open mind on that too, however. The examples you give only serve to underscore that our current leaders had plenty of examples they could have learned from but they acted consciously and deliberately in spite of them.
Jonerik,
“If that’s true than nobody has any rights under the constitution because an elected official’s actions, like the President’s can never be questioned by an unelected judicial official and for that matter a politician can never be be guilty of a crime while in office, like accepting bribes.”
Quite the contrary, good sir. I hold that it is precisely the tension deliberately created between the three branches that is the essential strength of our Constitution. The old Roman “Divide and Conquer” approach. And the attorney general’s office is a part of the EXECUTIVE branch, held accountable by the Judiciary and the Legislative branches.
I do believe that all three branches are essentially political entities, and that no one branch holds divine power but only that derived from the people. Parts need to be elected, and parts serve for live, but each must answer to the people as they are kept in check by the other two branches, who will bring their transgressions before them. Complaining when the executive branch, or a part of it, is playing its intended role in the tug of war seems to me simply the complaint of the (temporarily) losing team.
Incidentally, lest it be forgotten, no-one seems to be saying that whatever was done was a crime (they know better). They just want to play “Catch you in a lie under oath about it” — which would be a crime, unless it had to do with sex in the whitehouse.
A lot of people have said what Bush and company have been doing is criminal (warrantless eavesdropping on Americans, approving torture of innocent people, kidnapping of innocent people, etc.). So far no one in a position (or at least not enough of them) have been willing to pull out the “I” word but there has been talk.
I agree with your comment about “They just want to play “Catch you in a lie under oath about it” — which would be a crime, unless it had to do with sex in the whitehouse.” But there is a difference when one is talking about matters of state and private matters of sexual relations between consenting adults. So far, we have been watching a cat and mouse game between Gonzalez and White House staff and Congressional committees on whether the USAttorney firings were “politicized.” The evidence leaves no doubt in my mind but you have reservations. Apparently members of Congress do too. That does not mean that Congressional investigations are “political” just because they are trying to hold the Executive acountable. If members of the Executive branch lie under oath to Congress in order to cover up political influence of US Attorneys, courts or other officials with discretionary power, shouldn’t that be a crime? Or that “just politics” too?
^ (warrantless eavesdropping on Americans, approving torture of innocent people, kidnapping of innocent people, etc.)
Is this the democratic extremists equivalent of the Clinton Body Count? Funny how even decades away from the 60s, some people still live their life believing “The Man” is out to get them…eternally!