|
 ui
custodiet ipsos custodes? It's a Latin phrase that translates
roughly into, "Who watches the Watchmen?" Put another
way, who keeps an eye out on those charged with maintaining public
trust and order?
Given recent
events, it's an important question to ask.
In his recent
NR cover story, Rod Dreher referred to the scandal involving
pedophilia in the Boston archdiocese as the Catholic Church's Enron.
In its own cover feature last week, Newsweek made the same
analogy — while also borrowing the same "Sins of the Fathers"
title (apparently, Doris Kearns Goodwin is editing that magazine
now).
The comparison
is an apt one — though it would be more accurate to say that
the Boston archdiocese has been more like Arthur Andersen: By ignoring
its moral and fiduciary oversight role, both the church and the
accounting firm helped contribute to what became a far-reaching
tragedy.
In both cases,
basic wrongdoing (seemingly criminal in the case of the bankrupt
energy company, clearly so in the case of the priests) was compounded
by the failure of those with a responsibility to insure that rules
were being followed. Instead the watchers closed their eyes to what
was developing.
The results,
of course, were catastrophic.
Enron's immediate
victims — workers and investors — lost money, stability,
and confidence in the future. The victims of tragically ill men
of the cloth — children and their families — lost innocence,
emotional stability and confidence in the future.
But it would
be dangerous to see either of these scandals in isolated context.
The failures of men are relatively self-contained. When institutions
fail, they have serious ripple effects. Enron/Arthur Andersen had
been shining examples of modern businesses. The Boston diocese is
part of the broader American Catholic Church — which in turn
is part of worldwide Catholicism.
Enron's failure
has repercussions on other innovative industries. Andersen's incompetence
or sloppiness has repercussions on the entire accounting practice.
Combined, the two helped sow suspicion and uncertainty into the
markets. Unfairly or otherwise, free enterprise is undermined when
institutional distrust is injected into the system. There has to
be some objective accountability.
Qui custodiet
ipsos custodes?
A sense of
distrust or institutional corruption in organized religion is even
worse. The very job of a priest is to inspire trust, act as a confidant
and spiritual. The violation of that trust on an individual basis
can create doubt in even the most faithful. The sense of betrayal
is all the greater when the broader spiritual organization appears
more willing to protect its own institutional reputation rather
than doing what is best for its congregation's members.
Qui custodiet
ipsos custodes?
Large institutions
seem to be failing the trust test on grand scales…Business…Religion…
How about government?
Former President Clinton helped create distrust and suspicion by
misusing government agencies and powers in order to serve his own
wayward personal agendas.
George W. Bush
and Richard B. Cheney came in to restore honor and dignity to the
White House. In one major respect, they have succeeded. Their leadership
on the war on terror has certainly invigorated the country's patriotism
and sense of national honor.
On the other
hand, a legitimate need for secrecy in the context of national security
seems to have been overtaken by the administration's belief that
secrecy and executive prerogative must be the order of the day first
and foremost.
Last week,
this played out in several ways — the cumulative result being
the White House helping contribute to the sense of distrust in institutional
authority that is rapidly becoming the zeitgeist.
The Justice
Department finally agreed to turn over records on the Boston FBI's
handling of mob informants in the 1960s to Dan Burton's Government
Reform Committee. But it took Burton — a good conservative
chairman — threatening the administration with a congressional
contempt citation. Going back to spring of 2001, John Ashcroft had
refused to hand over the material. Finally, in October, Bush asserted
executive privilege to block any release.
The documents
speak to allegations that the Boston FBI (what is it about Beantown
and institutional corruption these days?) allowed innocent men to
sit in jail for crimes — including murder — that they
didn't commit. The story is even uglier in that the guilty parties
were, in fact, mob guys-turned-FBI-informants. One Joseph Salvati
spent 30 years behind bars for a murder he didn't do.
Thus, again,
the pattern reappears: crimes are committed; an institution that
is supposed to punish the guilty and protect the innocent —
in this case, the FBI — ends up doing exactly the opposite.
Multiple miscarriages of justices were allowed to continue over
the course of decades.
Qui custodiet
ipsos custodes?
Burton is answering
that question by investigating fully. He's trying to shed light
into one institution by using his own institutional authority. More
power to him.
Yet, while
the administration was acquiescing to Burton's request, it faced
three adverse court situations. On Wednesday, U.S. District Judge
Gladys Kessler ordered the Energy Department to release information
with respect to Cheney's task force. Last Thursday, another U.S.
Judge Emmet Sullivan accused the administration of "stalling,"
while hearing Judicial Watch's lawsuit pushing for the release of
task force documents. A third judge, Paul Friedman, also rejected
the administration's argument that a separate Judicial Watch-filed
case should be thrown out of court. Earlier this week, Friedman
went ahead and ordered half a dozen federal agencies to release
task force records within the next two months." Ironies abound,
of course: All three jurists are Clinton appointees, yet the principal
conservative watchdog group that made Clinton's life hell is now
apparently gearing up to do the same with the Bush crowd.
None of this
even speaks to the Government Accountability Office's lawsuit filed
two weeks ago against the vice president.
Given the current
atmosphere, the vice president's position — principled, as
it might be — is treacherous. At a moment when major institutions
appear to be shaking society's collective faith after large public
betrayals, Cheney's actions can only engender suspicion. A CBS poll
found that 77 percent of the public thought that the administration
was either hiding something or lying when it comes to Enron and
related matters. Even allowing for the bias usually to be found
in a CBS/New York Times survey, these are disturbing numbers.
The vice president
may very well have a good constitutional case to be made in keeping
the information on the energy task force close to his vest. He may
sincerely believe in the importance of protecting the institutional
strength of the executive branch.
However, given
the atmosphere of trust collapsing, there is a moral case which
the vice president should pay heed. Protecting the institutional
integrity of the executive requires handing over all the energy
task force material — as soon as possible.
Ultimately,
the success of the war will be determined on the field. Yet, the
constant "drip, drip, drip" of an administration having
multiple battles in court and with Congress can undermine the very
skillful ethical platform which has been the Bush's greatest strength
since he first declared himself a candidate. It's what sets him
apart from his predecessor and his 2000 opponent. Similarly, it
is what causes the American people to give him such latitude in
prosecuting the war.
If that sentiment
— that basic trust — evaporates, it will be tragic for
the administration and for the nation.
Qui custodiet
ipsos custodes?
|
