David Broder's Exercise in Typing

David Broder's column in today's Washington Post (free registration needed to read) is a strange exercise in how not to create an argument. On the one hand Broder acknowledges that the Republican Congress's in recent years have been somnolent in their approach to oversight of the Executive Branch; on the other hand he cautions the Democrats to be wary of too much oversight. On the one hand, he says that low-level staffers have run roughshod over the bureaucracy, forcing decisions based on base, crass politics; on the other hand, he calls these "bad decisions" rather than "illegal acts", which they in fact are. Most odd, he argues that the Democratic majority, thin as it is, is finding legislating difficult because of stonewalling Republicans, yet argues that the Democrats must legislate.

Then, to close it all out he notes the following:

Fulfilling that promise, later in the week the House passed a series of bills that stripped some of the secrecy from executive branch documents and decisions.

The most important measure strengthened the Freedom of Information Act, reasserting the principle that the public should have access to official documents, provided national security is protected. Bush's first attorney general, John Ashcroft, had issued a ruling that allowed agencies and departments to sequester information unless they were compelled to make it public -- placing the burden on the inquirer, not the bureaucracy.

Other bills passed by the House last week expand access to papers in presidential libraries and provide additional protection for "whistle-blowers," including government scientists and contractors who report improper activities.

The Democratic sponsors said that this accountability offensive is exactly what people voted for in November, meeting what Waxman termed "the public's call for fundamental reform."

Accountability is certainly important, but Democrats must know that people were really voting for action on Iraq, health care, immigration, energy and a few other problems. Investigations are useful, but only legislation on big issues changes lives.

So the Democrats should legislate, which he sites them as having done. Yet, they are not legislating enough . . . They should pass laws that effect people's lives, which they are trying to do (making the government transparent to all Americans would seem to effect the way people relate to their elected officials; then again, I'm a crazy left-wing Christian, so what do I know), but are stymied by obstructionist Republicans, which is also noted by Broder.

After a bit of thought, I just wonder - what, exactly was the point of this column by the alleged Dean of Political Reporters?