I blogged yesterday about the notion that the Bush administration might have reached a tipping point and how if it is, the cuts are all self-inflicted.
Which raises the question: How is it that such a reputedly bright group manages to discharge their political firearms into their own lower extremities?
The answer is what I call rectitudinal hubris, which I have discussed previously. Rectitudinal hubris is the state of being so sure of your own rectitude that you do not feel constrained by the rules that govern mere mortals. After all, those rules were instituted to keep people from doing bad things -- not a problem for those who know that they are right.
That notion was on display at the Conservative Political Action Committee's annual conference Friday, as reported by The Washington Post's Dana Milbank. According to Milbank, former Bush administration official Viet Dinh, one of the principle authors of the Patriot Act, made a noteworthy request to conservatives.
Dinh, now a Georgetown law professor, urged the CPAC faithful to carve out a Bush exception to their ideological principle of limited government. "The conservative movement has a healthy skepticism of governmental power, but at times, unfortunately, that healthy skepticism needs to yield," Dinh explained, invoking Osama bin Laden.
In other words: The constraints and concerns of conservatism regarding government power should not be applied to George W. Bush because, well, he's right.
That kind of thinking is reflected in the litany of other do-as-we-say examples that Maureen Dowd enumerates in Saturday's Times:
Vice President Dick Cheney bitterly complains that national security leaks are endangering America. Unless, of course, he's doing the leaking, tapping Scooter Libby to reveal national security information to punish a political critic.
President Bush says he will not talk about specific security threats to America. Unless, of course, he needs to talk about a specific threat to Los Angeles to confuse the public and gain some cheap political advantage.
It's OK for us to leak national security information, because ... we're right. Other, lesser beings might do it for the wrong reasons, which is why need laws against it. It's OK for us to talk about specific security threats because it helps us stay in power, which is important because ... were right.
The case of rectitudinal hubris at the White House is sufficiently advanced that since January 20, 2001 they have behaved as if their own moral rectitude was self-evident. How can anyone question them? They have said that they were right. Their own rectitude is self-proving.
As Milbank notes:
Still, the old prosecutor managed to elicit a crucial concession from Dinh: that the administration's case for its program comes down to saying "Trust me."
"None of us can make a conclusive assessment as to the wisdom of that program and its legality," Dinh acknowledged, "without knowing the full operational details. I do trust the president when he asserts that he has reviewed it carefully and therefore is convinced that there is full legal authority."
And for several years that was good enough for congressional Republicans. But cracks are developing, with New Mexico's Heather Wilson leading other GOP legislators to stand up and start asking questions.
We'll see how far those cracks reach -- stay tuned.