Day 348- Secrets and Lies

Dear Mr. President,

I've never been a particularly good secret-keeper. My face gives away every emotion, every lie I try to tell. This might be why I've never had the stomach for any significant subterfuge. I've been another person's secret too many times and seen it end too badly for them and for me to have any illusion about the nobility of secrecy. If a decision cannot bear the scrutiny of others it is probably not a particularly good choice. Michael Moore recently posted bail for Julian Assange, and in his letter explaining his motivation for this decision he says

Openness, transparency — these are among the few weapons the citizenry has to protect itself from the powerful and the corrupt. What if within days of August 4th, 1964 — after the Pentagon had made up the lie that our ship was attacked by the North Vietnamese in the Gulf of Tonkin — there had been a WikiLeaks to tell the American people that the whole thing was made up? I guess 58,000 of our soldiers (and 2 million Vietnamese) might be alive today.

Instead, secrets killed them.

I think that what you once called the "deficit of trust" Americans have in our leaders is brought about by these lies we've been told throughout history. Wikileaks is not the answer to this; a government that doesn't hide behind lies is the answer. Instead of joining the chorus of voices from the right and left calling Wikileaks a terrorist organization, I think that you should take this opportunity to change some of the behaviors you've been so embarrassed to have the rest of the world discover. I think an important (though, for obvious reasons, unsavory) step toward this is to relinquish some of the sweeping expansions made under President Bush to executive powers. Aspects of the PATRIOT ACT, the power to assassinate suspected terrorists without a trial, even the new standards for screening by the TSA all contribute to the sense that the government does not trust the people. It can hardly be a surprise, then, that the people have developed our own system for dealing with a similar mistrust for our leaders. Some one has to blink first. Demonstrating a commitment to responsible, trustworthy leadership is the only way the government can regain our trust.

A friend, while commenting on a previous letter about Wikileaks, pointed out

most of the people whining are old politicians. Our generation has already seen these document releases happen with corporate and personal communication. We have an entire generation (the boomers) that have relied on "security through obscurity", and that doesn't fly in the technological world. This is a rude wake-up call for them.

Perhaps the endearing anecdotes about your addiction to your Blackberry deceived me into thinking you'd be on our side of a generational conflict. Surely the age issue is as false a dichotomy as race or religion or any other of the teams we're told to fight for in life, but I think that my friend is right in identifying an old world view of security and the conflict between those who cling to it and those of us willing to view security in a modern light. Secrets and lies may have worked (at least for a little while) for previous administrations, the unprecedented level of individual access to information simply will not allow it to continue. Secrets and lies have created the current state of international affairs, the mistrust of Americans for actions our government has taken on our behalf and often without our knowledge.

Michael Moore and Julian Assange certainly have their share of faults. They also don't have the complicated, difficult job of running a country or trying to keep the free world safe. But the burdens of your position don't justify the lying and they don't justify defending a system that is based on mistrust of Americans. Even if you can't publicly defend Wikileaks or Assange, you can take steps to change the way our government keeps its secrets and the way it spies on the American people. We can't trust a government that doesn't trust us, and it's up to you to change that.

Respectfully yours,

Kelsey

Day 64

Dear Mr. President,

Michael Moore has written you a letter, asking to be installed in the place of Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel. When you picked Mr. Emanuel, back in 2008, I remember thinking, "Wow, he couldn't have picked any one more upsetting to Republicans in this country." (It was an admiring thought, not a critical one.) Clearly, I was just asking to be proven wrong.

Mr. Moore is a difficult character for me to embrace. I appreciate his issue-based crusades, his willingness to attack, rather than just play cautious defense. He gave a speech at my school, Willamette University, in 2004 shortly before Bush was re-elected. I recall being buoyed a bit, by his pugnacity, even as it made me uncomfortable. His methods are not always easy to agree with, his tactics often heavy handed and tending toward the ridiculous. But he does force the debate to take place on his terms, something I wish a few more of us on the left were capable of doing.

I can't decide if the rumblings about problems with the White House senior staff are just liberals who can't appreciate the difficulties of governing a country compared to the outsider's struggle just to be heard, or if they have a legitimate point. I think that shouting and grandstanding may help us, when we're in the minority, when we have no reasoned, legislative way to advance our agenda, but as the majority party, it doesn't sit well.

Back in 2008, I had hoped that your appointment of Mr. Emanuel, who is known for his pro-Israel views, would allow you the political cover to take truly drastic steps in repairing our credibility and effectiveness as a mediator with the Palestinians. Sadly, this has not come to pass. That being said, I haven't been disappointed in Mr. Emanuel's performance as Chief of Staff. If one accepts Mr. Moore's premise (and I don't) that your agenda has been completely held up by a lack of assertiveness on the part of the White House, I suppose that could be a good reason to look for a new COS. But I think, ultimately, that the responsibility has to be with you, sir, and not Mr. Emanuel. If a new COS will help advance our agenda, will wake up congressional Democrats and will give the impression of timely and substantial progress, than I support replacing him. (Though, hopefully, not with Michael Moore.) In the end, however, I think we both know that Mr. Emanuel is not the problem. Congress is the problem. Right now, Republicans have the same advantage over Democrats that the insurgents in Iraq had over coalition forces; we have to win, and they just have to keep from losing. I don't relish comparing governing to warfare; I would rather believe that we work with the Republicans, not against them, but their fierce partisanship, their pervasive obstinacy has made this an apt metaphor.

Read the letter from Mr. Moore with a grain of salt. He makes some valid points, which are worth considering, but he is wrong, I think, both about the lack of momentum and its supposed source. He won't be the last to call for a change in the senior staff, to be certain. I never thought I'd be defending Rahm Emanuel, Mr. President, but I think that your Chief of Staff is serving you well in what we all ought to understand is a long, difficult struggle.

Respectfully yours,

Kelsey