Government
bureaucracy sweeps away blame
Terence
Detoy
Bureaucracy,
thy name is government touts the Republican
Party in its usual coercive fury, wanting
to reduce the extent and influence of
the government after having fought bitterly
to win executive control and majorities
in both houses. There is a potent irony
in the notion that the political party
forged from an unwavering resentment
of government control has become its
very hegemon.
A word of advice — it is never
wise to do away with potential concealment
when one has something to conceal. Yet, those extraneous layers of governmental
structure that have been so berated by the GOP have come to serve as its refuge.
Conservatives have perfected the art of spouting anti-bureaucratic rhetoric
while simultaneously using governmental influence to obscure their own misdoings.
A dense fog of bureaucracy, that loathed political go-between, has thus far
proven itself to be quite useful for its most vocal critics. When asked by
the media why he would oppose federal control of disaster response units, Rep.
Tom DeLay, R-Texas, vociferously replied: “Bureaucracy, bureaucracy,
bureaucracy.” And yet, hardly two weeks later, after his second indictment,
DeLay has sought out every protective fold within the bureaucratic web.
The vibrant political network in Washington D.C. has thus far been the medium
for DeLay’s aggressive, retaliatory defense strategy. This has initiated
a chain reaction of communication and argumentation until all the elements
of cogent debate have been sufficiently deteriorated so that seasoned chunks
of American politics can finally be tossed to impatient members of the media.
Amidst this perpetual chaos, DeLay is safe. It may seem presumptuous to assume
his legal team will be able to construct a palpable defense or misdirection
method simply by citing the loopholes and inconsistencies that inevitably come
with big government to exonerate him, but given the conservative track record
of avoiding the repercussions of their scandals by concocting ad hoc defense
arguments, DeLay’s does not have much to worry about.
Meanwhile, Karl Rove, director for the “U. S. Department of Propaganda,” will
more than likely persist through the oncoming clamor that was generated when
he was exposed as being the one who leaked the identity of CIA agent Valerie
Plame to the media.
Tucked away safe and sound behind the full span of many governmental layers
separating Rove from an infuriated and indignant public, he is free of responsibility.
His defense is that he did not disclose Plame’s actual name, referring
to the CIA agent instead as the wife of Joseph Wilson, and thus had done nothing
wrong — an absurd claim considering the relative ease with which journalists
like Robert Novak could look up Wilson’s marriage records to find the
agent’s name.
Big government has the unfortunate quality of being imprecise and vague. When
government regulations overlap, there is the possibility to interpret ethics
subjectively. Without a solid consensus on standards, they become debased and
unsubstantial. This has allowed Rove the leeway he needed to perform the necessary
legal maneuvers to steer clear of the retribution President George W. Bush
has repeatedly promised to deliver to those linked to the Plame leak.
Take the infamous photographs taken at Abu Ghraib as another example. The leaders
who allowed for this behavior have remained in the backdrop of this American
embarrassment. Instead a handful of other low-ranking soldiers were court-martialed.
No one is going to deny that the soldiers were involved. Yet to suppose a handful
of low-ranking officers capable of the scenes depicted in the photographs without
their superiors knowing is absurd. How is it that leadership in the Iraq conflict
has become so fractured that obscene abominations of justice go unnoticed by
them?
Military and government officials dodged the witch-hunt by distancing themselves
completely. The Bush administration eagerly granted them sanctuary fearing
Abu Ghraib would be seen as the actions of the American military and not the
actions of a few disgruntled soldiers. Obscured by the government’s massive
organizational body, it never became clear just who was responsible.
Incompetent leadership seems to be a recurring theme for the Bush administration.
Michael Brown, former Federal Emergency Management Agency chief, testified
before Congress to explain his actions (or lack thereof) responding to Hurricane
Katrina. With the contention of a professional wrestler, Brown obstinately
denied allegations of incompetence, even when reminded that he failed to send
assistance to Katrina survivors in the Astrodome because he was unaware of
the development of the situation, despite its national news coverage.
“
Heck of a job, Brownie,” Bush encouraged Brown at one point. His tune
changed when his approval rating was released. Despite his total ineptitude,
Brown did not face castigation. Brown was pulled from Katrina, but still in
possession of the job he already proved incapable of doing.
Brown quit FEMA of his own accord, though he is still on the FEMA payroll.
Brown should have been fired, plain and simple. Instead, he was protected and
swept under the bureaucratic carpet along with all the other scandals, failures
and ineptitude.
This article originally ran in The Daily Campus at the University of Connecticut.
|
