True North: In Search of Moral Direction

I've been conflicted over the past several days, trying to come to grips with warring feelings over writing about my growing perception that the Barack Obama we elected is drifting ever farther off-course. Would the article be presumptuous? Would it give ammunition to some of his critics who seem intent on undermining his presidential leadership at all costs? Would it just be spitting into the wind?

My conscience was rejuvenated this morning when I read Arianna Huffington's masterful piece on the president's approach to health care reform. (Arianna, you may not remember, but I once shared with you that I keep a copy of the Isaiah Berlin "Hedgehog and Fox" parable in my BlackBerry so it's at hand all the time!) As I read her article, my anger was reignited. Yes, I thought, when you see something wrong, your obligation as a citizen is to point it out.

It's time to speak up.

The criticism of the release of the CIA Inspector General's Office Report on Enhanced Interrogation Techniques falls into two camps, one being a subset of the other. First, there are those who say the timing of the report could be politically counterproductive in that it will divert the public's and media's attention away from other pressing issues. That is, if you're going to drop this bad news, at least drop it at a more "politically appropriate" time (whenever that might be).

The second school of thought says forget timing, don't release the report at all, and don't make the CIA look bad. To twist a phrase from eighties television, "Don't make the CIA angry. You wouldn't like the CIA when it's angry."

These concepts are chilling in uniquely different ways. The first echoes with the ache of breached trust, the second with the dread of unchecked governmental power. Both should feel devastating to reasonable Americans. What's interesting, though, is how they really are two sides of the same coin. When examined, they are both painful reminders of the gulf we now see between Obama the candidate and Obama the president. How he addresses the problem as a whole and how he answers each of these specific opinions will tell us much about the direction of his presidency. Brace yourself.

Let's take them one at a time, starting with the presumption that there's a "right" time to share news. There's no question that in this world, the timing of information release has its high-value uses. A hackneyed sitcom story might feature a wife who tells her husband about a lavish purchase not the day she makes it, but the day the credit card bill shows up. With disastrous results of course, to teach us a lesson in honesty. This is controlling timing, to be sure, but "right" time is the wrong modifier. "Advantageous" is the word they're searching for. And I understand it. Except that the idea in no way fits into Candidate Obama's promise of a new transparency. "The American people want to trust in our government again -- we just need a government that will trust in us," he said. "And making government accountable to the people isn't just a cause of this campaign -- it's been a cause of my life for two decades."

Really? If the man doesn't have the faith in the voters to take the brutal truth of how the CIA sometimes gathers information and still be able to consider the intricacies of saving our health care system, then he's not treating us like adults. He's baiting and switching and hiding the receipt for that hilarious new hat in the drawer, waiting until a more convenient time to trot it out. If he knuckles under to this timing-the-news idea, one must come to the conclusion that either he was either lying about his moral convictions back on the campaign trail (something I don't believe) or he's lost his way (something I'm afraid I am starting to believe). After all, he reversed his decision to release all those other photographs from Abu Ghraib, a censorship move I have a hard time imagining Grant Park Obama embracing.

High-stakes politics is often a forest-for-the-trees job. It appears that many of those who occupy the Oval Office temporarily misplace their moral compasses. Without this tool in good working order, the best-intentioned leader runs the risk of getting lost in minutia and compromises which inevitably pile up.

Say what you want about George W. Bush, he knew what he thought and acted accordingly. The sad part is President Obama does have a moral compass. He's on record as wanting to run his administration in the spirit of Lincoln and FDR, and give America the kind of hope my friend Martin Luther King, Jr. did.

And what did those people have in common that seems to be missing from Obama now that he has his dream job? A willingness to make enemies in pursuit of righteous change, an understanding that compromise is often a dilution of pure right with a healthy splash of wrong, a self-assuredness that impersonates fearlessness.

If Obama is the kind of leader that can check those traits right off the list, I certainly haven't seen it.

It's simple. If, on this issue of the "wrong time" for the report the president says, "Now is the only right time to release it, because an open honest American government doesn't sugar-coat the truth," then I start believing again. But I won't hold my breath waiting.

Complicating the moral bind the president seems to be struggling against is the idea -- floating free in the Washington ether -- that the CIA is above reproach. That to criticize this venerable institution is tantamount to treason.

Forget that the very pillars of the federal government are designed to catch each others' mistakes, forget that the Bill of Rights wove "Freedom of The Press" into the fabric of our society precisely to encourage open debate about system's flaws.

Forget the ideals; let's just focus on the facts. Because truth of the CIA is a matter of public record, and they are not above reproach. They're not above anything, really.

One glance at Weiner's superbly researched Legacy of Ashes: the History of the CIA tells you everything you need to know about the agency's tool kit. They use money and bullets to get their work done. Lying is their lingua franca, and assassination was a tax-payer supported modus operandi until 1976, when Gerald Ford issued an executive order banning the practice. So... when you can't run, you walk fast. When you can't shout, you talk loud. And when you can't kill people, you hurt them very badly. It's only natural; there should be no real surprise here. Not too long ago, every hockey team had its goons. Any way you sliced it, the job was "enforcer," and they have been called left wings or defensemen, yet all but the most naïve fan would ever have thought they were on the ice for their grace or scoring abilities.

And this is the fundamental issue with the CIA. It's a messy, nasty area of work that we seem to believe has value to our society. If we empower an agency, we should expect it to use the tools it's been given do its job.

So, why the knee-jerk reaction? Why are government agencies like CIA afraid of being embarrassed for doing its job? Why is this organic paranoia peppered throughout the institution? The people high up in the organization are likely concerned because they remember something Obama said that he himself isn't acting like he remembers: that situations such as the prison at Guantanamo damaged America's moral standing in the world. "We intend to win this fight," Obama said, "We are going to win it on our own terms."

New terms, not Bush's, and certainly not the CIA's. That's threatening. The pressure is on regarding this torture issue. Would you expect the CIA to voluntarily decide something in their toolkit is immoral? It took a presidential edict to stop murder as a sanctioned weapon, and that doubtless made them feel like they were fighting with one hand behind their back. Are you happy when your bosses try to take some of your responsibilities away where you work? As Frederick Douglass so elegantly stated, "Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will."

The frightening thing here is, knowing about their methodology, when one gets the sense the CIA is taking criticism personally, the tacit threat they make with every press release feels all-too-real: you cross them at your own peril not because there's any legislation against speaking out, but because the CIA is thin-skinned and vengeful. Good for movies, bad for real life. I've seen it personally in my experiences with J. Edgar Hoover and the FBI. Weiner's book is full of untold examples. Unelected officials can easily take on the ego and hubris of monarchs, thinking they're more powerful than either representatives or the people they represent. This is how police states are built.

On principle and as a student of the democratic process, President Obama needs to draw a line. The hell with embarrassing the CIA, we can't let our leaders be strong-armed by them anymore. That's embarrassing to us.

Obama can nail two big birds with one stone here. By saying the Executive Branch doesn't answer to the Central Intelligence Agency, it's the other way around, he's establishing how he's allowing himself (and by extension us) to be treated. By publicly sharing the information and opening the debate on "enhanced" interrogation he may retake the moral high ground after all.

He could start by lowering the threshold of redacted information in the report (it seems to be about half-blacked out at this point). That idea that people "don't want to see how the sausage is made" is a hold-over from a pre-Obama world. At least a pre-campaigning Obama world. If we can't live with ourselves doing what the CIA thinks we have to do to protect ourselves as a country, we put the pressure on our leaders and eventually rules get changed. This well may make organizations like the CIA less effective, but that hypothetical tradeoff isn't the debate (quite possibly they've been less effective with assassination off the table for the past thirty years, but those are the rules). The opportunity here is to learn of what stuff our president is made.

In Paris last December on the occasion of the 60th Anniversary of the signing of the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights, I was asked to compare then President-elect Obama to Martin Luther King, Jr. I said Barack Obama was a gifted political leader. Dr. King was a moral leader. Additionally, I said King was sui generis; wholly unique. I asked rhetorically who today is like Michangelo, Shakespeare, Galileo, Mozart, or Beethoven. I also reminded them that "In twelve years and four months, from 1956 to April 4, 1968 -- except for President Lincoln and the Emancipation Proclamation -- Martin Luther King Jr. did more to achieve racial, social and political justice and equality in America than any other person in our country's history. The jury is still out. It may be that Obama's presidential leadership will require me to amend what I just said."

I added then and still cling to the belief that Barack Obama still has the chance to possibly end up as one of the most effective national political leaders in America in a generational lifetime.

But only if he checks back on his moral compass.

Jesus taught in parables because like facts they inform, but unlike facts, they also encourage the mind's plasticity, setting the table for future teaching to take root. Earlier today, Arianna offered a parable about two kinds of leadership. Let me offer a parable here. We, a unique but troubled republic, were told by a great leader that "We are the 'we' we have been waiting for." If we are still waiting for ourselves, just how great was that leader after all?

 

 

Comments

[Boyaca]

This article sums up my feelings about President Obama 100%. I can't help but feel that he , like Bush before him, does not get to see the National Press. I think that there is a holdover from the Bush Administration, that shields the president from the public view on how he is doing his job. From where I stand, Obama is continuing Bush's policies to the letter. He is as much as Bush was, in the pocket of Corporate America, and in particular the Military Industrial Complex. Is he being threatened? Is he being intimidated? Is he being bribed? What has happened in such a short time to take him from his position of moral rectitude to this weak kneed president? The American People need a leader, that will take the country back from the lobbying industry. Where is the president Obama that the American people elected, to straighten out, the mess that has become Washington ever since the election of Ronald Reagan? From where I sit, it is just more of the same. What a disappointment.

[tc399]

I like the article although it seems a bit forced. Some of the replies are nonsense, but that is to be expected. For instance, name ONE place in the rest of the world the CIA has a good reputation. There isn't one. They are a laughingstock!

The President is not on the track he promised us in Grant Park. He actually off-tracked midway through the runup to the election and a lot of us complained loudly. But it's true. He wants to be liked more than he wants to be President; and because he has become so tentative, the great majority of voters, who don't grasp the issues anyway, will turn on him. Cheney needs to be in prison. There is no middle ground here. Death squads and torture are either not acceptable or they are. President Obama was elected to be a moral leader. He has not stepped up.

Mr. President, the buck stops at your desk. Not Leon's over at the Agency. Not Hillary's over at State. Those people are footnotes to history as you will be if you don't take charge. Send someone over to tell Dick Cheney to shut his face. Have Keith Olbermann explain why it is impossible to fly from Kenya to Hawaii. I was a huge supporter.­..but no more. We need someone a little tougher in a good way than Bush was in a bad way..

[Thaliacole]

The CIA has been out of control for decades, since its inception. One month after the assassination of JFK, President Truman [who created the agency in 1947] wrote an essay for the Washington Post newspaper warning the agency was dangerously out of control. Here is the relevant statement:

For some time I have been disturbed by the way CIA has been diverted from its original assignment. It has become an operational and at times a policy-making arm of the Government. This has led to trouble and may have compounded our difficulties in several explosive areas.

You can read the entire essay here:

http://www.maebrussell.com/Prouty/Harry%20Truman's%20CIA%20article.html

The CIA has been out of control [and acting immorally] for a very long time.

[ObamaSheeple]

Thanks for the link. I never knew. Between Eisenhower and Truman, both men in the "know" for obvious reasons, it's actually quite scary to think about these "shadow" type separate "governments".
They use our money and do whatever the hell they want, and no one can say boo about it.

[pearlx2]

"If we are still waiting for ourselves, just how great was that leader after all?"

We've only been waiting for approximately 7-1/2 months; it takes longer than that to change a world -- and to correctly evaluate a leader.

[Aaror]

It takes more than leadership to make a leader, it takes followers too.
Granted, a great leader can make great followers out of any random group, but the followers have to be willing to get off their rear ends.

[enquiringmind]

Great diary, thanks..

The torture issue will NEVER ever go away, it remains part of America's cultural history , Vietnam too..four million Vietnamese died..So yes..take it on headlong and repair the soul..The truth and reconciliation commissions worldwide do have a healing effect and while difficult I don't see how anyone can ignore this forever. It is a matter of moral leadership.

Thanks again.

[oldschoololdsoul]

I think we greatly overestimate the power of the President in what has become an era of lies, disinfo and chaos created by the 4th estate and the money power, which together have so confused the body politic that our leaders are only as just and moral as the moneymen behind the scenes who pull their strings.

[Sinick]

Thanks for jogging my brain! I vividly remember the Bush administration and its ability to divert the attention of public and the media by the strategic release of some unrelated and highly incendiary information. While everybody was frothing at the mouth about the travesty du jour, the Bushies quietly went on their way ramming their agenda down the throats of Congress. This latest CIA dirt is highly "Rovian!"

[Michael Shanley]

Thanks for Clarence & Arianna, for reminding us all that it is our jobs as citizens to point out the "Wrongs"and one should be able to voice and discuss these matters without being called names, silenced or worst ignored

[Emerald1943]

My heart aches right now for the President who I have loved and supported from the beginning. I hear talk from the town hall meetings that is abhorrent and border-line treason against him. I hear the naysayers and the doubters piling on about what they perceive as "broken promises". I hear the Republicans tell bald-faced lies and distortions. I hear the media talking heads criticize constantly, picking apart every word he utters. I hear the right-wing "teabaggers" call him the most vile names, punctuating their hate speech with pictures of the President as Hitler. And today, a town hall attendee even threatened to "bring a gun to Washington". This man's meaning was crystal-clear.

When can we get past this madness?

The proof is in the pudding, so the saying goes. As the discussion pertains to health care reform, we as the President's faithful supporters need to get up off the couch and get involved. We must fight for health care reform and the President needs us right now! Enough of the constant criticism, nit-picking, name calling, feelings on our sleeves. Let's get out there and let our voices be heard! Give this man our support, or there is no way his agenda will be passed! The Republicans will have won the last election, never mind who was elected!

[anachoret]

Great piece.
The difference I have seen between the candidate and the President makes me wonder about his "team of rivals." It looks as if the rivalry has ended, and candidate Obama has lost to his own team.
I hope I'm wrong.

[YewNeekId]

A few points.

1) It was a well written and conceived piece.

2) It would be fair to at least give a head nod to Jack and Bobby Kennedy for their roles in bring civil rights to fruition. King was inspirational, JFK was transformational. It was the civil rights bill that JFK pushed through Congress that LBJ signed a few months after JFK was murdered.

3) The Obama that I campaigned for, donated to and voted for is gone. He was an illusion and I'm afraid that I was duped.

4) It is too easy to see where Obama's moral compass points by looking at FISA, DADT, DOMA, secret White House visitor logs, backroom deals with Pharma, the pork laden stimulus bill etc. It's not pointed at main street.

The morphing of Obama is a tragedy for me. I am 60 years old and may not have another chance for real change in my lifetime. Such high hopes made the disappointment all the harder.

The preceeding is my opinion

[mcmchugh99]

I think Obama is very timid and cautious, and will pretty much go along with the Republicans on these things. He doesn't want them to play the "Wimp Card" on him like they did with McGovern, Carter, Dukakis and Kerry. He doesn't want to be seen as anti-military, anti-CIA, or weak on foreign policy.

This is why I don't expect the investigation into torture to amount to anything but another dog and pony show, maybe going after a few flunkies while ignoring those who gave the orders. I also think he's going to be in Afghanistan for teh duration, even if he has to abandon all pretense of being a domestic reformer.

[Alanlak]

Actually, as intriguing as the exposition of the "timing" of the CIA documents release arguments are, does it occur to anyone that the timing may have really been brought about by something entirely different, that being constant pressure from such heroic groups as the ACLU?

As far the the courage of Martin Luther King is concerned, I will never forget that Obama declined to attend the King Memorial observance during the 208 campaign. This one choice of his told me a great deal about the content of Obama's character and his willingness to face formidable foes in the name of a good cause.

[STILJON]

If more reporting is focused on how the prosecution of justice prevents any administration from using techniques that are not only illegal but don't work and how both put us at greater risk, more and more Americans will support torture investigations. We have to be smart about winning this critical argument that should serve our nation, the world and actually be politically beneficial. Would love to see your enthusiasm for details be used to emphasize the many ways torture does not keep us safer followed by the new strategies employed by the current administration that serve our countries security and leadership. Once people first understand that torture is not an effective strategy for our security then everyone will be motivated to move forward with a timely but comprehensive investigation that will lead to recommendations which will set this country back on a course of security and leadership.

[doubleagl]

Unfortunately, Mr. Jones, I am impelled to agree with you. As a well-educated 62 year old American, I wouldn't even begin to espouse any true understanding of the complexities involved in dealing with any of these issues at the presidential level. However, I too, confess to feeling betrayed, by the undelivered promises of, my candidate, Barack Obama.
Not since JFK, when I was only 12 years old, and in the eighth grade, getting my "political whistle" wet, so to speak, did I feel the hope and promise of a future America. "YES WE CAN", has become no more than an empty campaign slogan, to put America's first Afro-American President in the White House. As a white man, it’s been a long time coming, to see the American people, as a whole, finally beginning to practice what they preach, by practicing and exhibiting, for the entire world to see, their belief and acceptance of racial equality. For this, I am proud. For the president's accomplishments, I am truly saddened.