Besides the various posts of Arthur Silber are this from Glenn Greenwald and this over at Crooks & Liars. The sum total of these posts is to dampen liberal and progressive enthusiasm for a chiange in the atmosphere of Washington. Based upon the idea that Cheney is somehow the dark and sinister puppetmaster of George Bush and his Administration, we are to believe that the Executive Branch will continue to operate as it has for the past five-and-a-half years, without regard to Constitutional checks on executive authority and the requirements of legislative oversight. In other words, these articles are suggesting, the election of a Democratically controlled Congress, and perhaps the most liberal Congress since the mid-1960's, if not since the New Deal, is meaningless because a member of the Administration holds the view that Presidential power, and Executive privilege trumps Congressional power. If so, why did we all work so hard, insist on getting out the vote, and celebrate when the change came?
Are we or are we not a democratic Republic? Do we operate under a rule of law or not? Was the exercise of the franchise irrelevant or not? We either accept that we have power now, and use that power towards the ends the electorate desires, or we crumple under the onslaught of Dick Cheney and his barking-cat mentality. I am, frankly, sick unto death of the fear so many have of this man. If indeed the Administration follows his lead and refuses to cooperate with any investigation or oversight COngress conducts, it will only succeed in hastening the day when impeachment proceedings arrive; we should not shirk our duty simply because, as of now, there seems little support for it. Provoking a Constitutional crisis is just the sort of thing holding Cheney's line will accomplish.
Or, we can accept the premise that the Executive will refuse to cooperate, and the Congressional Democrats will accede. If they do so, then the voters' trust in them was misplaced, and all the pundits in Washington - who have a record of spectacular error - may actually be correct about something.
In either case, we will still be faced with the question that titles this post? Do elections matter? If we are willing to grant that they do, part of that includes the part we must play in insisting the Democrats do the job they were elected to do. To quote Donald Rumsfeld (of all people), Democracy is hard. It isn't enough to just stick these folks in office and hope for the best. If they start to flag under the strain, we need to be their spines.
If, however, we stand trembling before Cheney like we were on a hunting trip with him, then I guess the Constitution really is dead. If we put the person in office above the laws surrounding that office, we are a monarchy, or a dictatorship, or anything but the Republic we used to be. That failure, however, will rest with us. Not with the Democrats in office, who are ony as strong as the support they get from the voters.
We have to act as if elections matter. If need be, we need to teach Dick Cheney and George Bush and Alberto Gonzalez and Condoleeza Rice and John Yoo and all the rest of them that elections matter, even when they don't go the way they might like.
Virtual Tin Cup
