Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
For the last 8 years, the left has quite correctly criticized the Bush administration for the near-fetish they have made of secrecy and lack of transparency in government. The record is appalling: Investigations have been stonewalled, millions of emails have mysteriously -- and conveniently -- disappeared, White House entry logs have been declared classified and off limits to the media, frivolous assertions of privilege have attempted to shield the administration from any scrutiny.
So zealous was the administration to avoid any accountability to anyone even while exercising their most intrusive power that they have even refused to ask a court that operates in secrecy for warrants, as federal law and the constitution demands, before spying on American citizens. The left has, quite rightly, been highly critical of such secrecy, arguing that it undermines public accountability and the right of citizens to know what is being done in their name.
Unfortunately, some on the left are conveniently forgetting this entirely valid critique of government secrecy now that Barack Obama is poised to occupy the oval office. Matt Miller, a senior fellow with the Center for American Progress, a leading liberal think tank, has an appalling op-ed in the Washington Post calling for Obama to demand what he calls a political pre-nup from those he appoints:
Just as mergers and marriages that flourished on handshakes and vows had to turn to coarser arrangements once the stakes of break-up became high, the politician-aide relationship now needs its contract. In other words, it is time for the political prenuptial. Barack Obama should simply require key advisers and officials to sign a binding contract of confidentiality as a condition of employment. Aides should pledge not to disclose anything they see until, say, five years after their boss leaves office. The legitimate claims of history would thus be honored, along with the rightful expectations of presidents.It's a shame, of course, that integrity has to be assured rather than assumed, but the political pre-nup is an idea whose time has come. Hollywood celebrities have required such contracts forever, from every cook, nanny and "personal assistant" they hire. Once President-elect Obama and his transition leaders think about this, they'll realize that there is no downside to a pre-nup and no shame in insisting on one. It lets the president-elect establish new standards for public service. It offers lawyers an area of public life where they can finally do something constructive. And it would make Barack Obama the first president to enter meetings secure in the knowledge that if any notes his aides are scribbling are destined to appear in print, it will be long after he has left the White House.
When Glenn Greenwald calls Miller's suggestion "an atrocious idea" he is being entirely too kind. This is not just an atrocious idea, it is both highly hypocritical and highly dangerous. As Greenwald points out, the organization that Miller works for recently praised a report criticizing the Bush administration for too much secrecy and not enough transparency. He also responds perfectly on the substance of Miller's argument:
In light of that, it's staggering that people like Miller, now that there's a Democratic administration on the horizon, would be plotting and advocating still new presidential powers to further strengthen the wall of secrecy behind which our Government operates. One of the very few reasons that we have learned anything meaningful about what the Bush administration did was because people inside the administration decided, for whatever reasons, to shed light on it, to leak it, and to describe what they saw and heard.Just imagine the ugly, anti-democratic spectacles that would arise if Miller's proposal were accepted. If someone like Scott McClellan were about to publish a book that contained embarrassing -- though completely unclassified -- revelations about what President Obama said or did, then Obama could send lawyers into court seeking to enjoin publication of the book. Or the whistle-blowing author could be sued by the President for damages for having described what he saw. Who could possibly think that's desirable?
If the critique of government secrecy that has been made so powerfully by critics of the Bush administration is a principled one -- and it must be, if it is to mean anything at all -- then it must apply to Democratic administrations as well. If we do not oppose excessive secrecy by the executive branch regardless of the party occupying the White House, that critique is merely partisan hackery rather than a principled stand.
Not only should Obama reject this idea, he should do everything in his power to reverse the course that Bush has set for the executive branch. He should publicly pledge, for example, not to make any assertions of executive privilege to hinder investigations. He should order a review of the staggering cache of documents that the Bush administration has classified and declassify the ones that do not have a clear impact on national security.
In the Senate, Obama led the fight for more transparency, sponsoring a bill that put every single government contract online so citizens could see how their money is being spent. If that fight was about principles rather than expediency, he must apply those principles consistently as president.
Politics
Comments
I'm betting Miller's advice will be ignored, it's counter to the character Obama has presented to the public with no reason to believe that attribute is anything but legit.
What would really shock me would be to see someone hired at the level of Press Secretary or higher by the Obama Administration that was as pathetic and moronic as Scott McClellan.
Posted by: Michael Heath | December 11, 2008 9:47 AM
On first reading, Miller's proposal actually sounded pretty good to me. I would assume that, just like civil confidentiality agreements, this political pre-nup would offer no protection to the power of a court or Congressional subpoena, so could not be effectively used to hamper investigations. It would simply plug the media leaks - and frankly, I don't see a problem with that in theory.
The problems only come into play when we look at reality as opposed to the way things are supposed to work. McClellan's book would have been neither important nor necessary if Congress and the courts had been doing their part to maintain the checks and balances against the Executive Branch. It is only because the established means to rein in the Administration are not being used that make extra-legal "leaks" an important method of redress.
Posted by: BobApril | December 11, 2008 10:05 AM
I can't imagine anyone with any intelligence or integrity suggesting this is a good idea regardless of who happens to be in the White House at the time. This is idiotic.
Posted by: dogmeatib | December 11, 2008 10:05 AM
Given the amount of transparency we've already seen from the transition team, I remain optimistic about the direction Obama wants to go.
Posted by: WScott | December 11, 2008 10:32 AM
Up front - I am an Obama supporter and would have voted for him if I lived in the US. I've also been a fan of the change.gov site which seems to be a genuine attempt to provide a 2-way conduit with the American people.
That said President-Elect Obama isn't in office yet and is already making some questionable decisions.
I guess we can't expect everything to be perfect and it's obviously a world-class step up from President Bush but some of the shine is starting to come off. I think we have to accept that in terms of the politics, if not the vision, in a lot of ways it's "new boss, same as the old boss".
Posted by: David Durant | December 11, 2008 11:44 AM
I'm supremely disappointed in Miller for suggesting this. He hosts a local weekly NPR show called Left, Right and Center (which gets some national distribution) and I've always found him to be thoughtful and principled. Though in fairness, it does seem like he supports this idea for all administrations and would have done so for Bush. A stupid idea indeed, but I think he's at least being consistent.
BobApril hit the nail squarely on the head: Miller is working in a theoretical world, not reality. Miller thinks that it should be the job of journalists to dig for the truth instead of waiting for insider tell-alls. That's a nice thought but we've repeatedly seen journalists go soft-ball to maintain access until they're basically mouthpieces for the administration. He also proposes that staffers of integrity, if asked to do something illegal or immoral, should first resign, then speak out in protest. Again, great in theory but not always realistic. The very principled and courageous military lawyers who resigned over Gitmo are the exception, not the rule. Sometimes the only way we can really find out what happened in an administration is to wait for a chickenshit like McClellan to quietly resign without protest and then cash-in with a book deal. I would hate to see that option vanish.
Oh, and I find his comparison to Hollywood confidentiality agreements/prenups just bizarre. I didn't get to vote for Angelina Jolie or her nanny and neither of them are paid directly with my tax dollars.
Posted by: peaches | December 11, 2008 11:46 AM
Rephrased, he's just claiming that there's a free lunch, and there ain't no such thing. Anytime someone tells you there's no cost, check your pockets.
Posted by: James Hanley | December 11, 2008 1:09 PM
David Durant stated:
Your source was a blogger/author venting his strong opinion about a future decision not yet made. He was not reporting any actual decisions Obama has made as you state given that Obama has not yet reported who to nominate for the Dept. of Education.
In fact, if you read the actual article your source used which he did not link to:, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/23/AR2008112302240.html, there is nothing to suggest the Post reporter came up with these names from the Obama transition team using the "unnamed sources" trial balloon method your source claims. For all we know the Post reporter could merely be speculating on who a Democract-elect would consider.
Here is another perspective: http://www.tnr.com/story_print.html?id=93ad30ac-7461-4afb-8e80-f3c36644587e
While this report includes the two names your source opposes, it also argues that Darling-Hammond may also be a possible candidate. While this report refers to a "short list", it also does not report any leaked reportage that would cause the careful reader to infer these names are being leaked as trial balloons by the Obama transition team.
At this juncture, it sounds to me a like a lot of different education leaders are jockeying for leverage in the media to lobby for their guy/gal and ideological approach. I wouldn't go so far to pin such hand-wringing on Obama or Darling-Hammond "deciding" which names to consider beyond Obama's naming Darling-Hammond, given she's heading his transition team on education.
Posted by: Michael Heath | December 11, 2008 1:17 PM
Michael,
Well put. All we can do is wait and see.
Posted by: David Durant | December 11, 2008 1:23 PM
I first misread the headline as "Political Pinups: A Very, Very Bad Idea." Immediately a mental image of Hillary Clinton riding sidesaddle on a rocket, while waving a cowboy hat and wearing not but an American flag, imposed itself on my mind. I thought I couldn't agree more, a very, very bad idea indeed. Now that I've actually read the article I realize I was wrong. I can and do agree more.
Posted by: Abby Normal | December 11, 2008 2:44 PM
Interesting. One of the last times I was in the UK this year or last, there was increasing concern being expressed in some quarters that too many cabinet ministers were keeping diaries of all their meetings and behind closed doors negotiations and activities so that they could cash in on tell-all books once they had left their jobs.
There certainly is plenty of scope for mischief, since I'm guessing that all kinds of hypothetical problems and solutions are debated in private without ever being seriously considered as candidates for public policy, and if you have to worry that one day every word you say, or every boneheaded idea you have that gets shot down can be unfairly exposed to public scrutiny, it's only natural to want to defend against that, and that can lead, as it seems to have done in Bush's case, to too many loyalty-first, competence-second, yes-men on the team. Most people probably don't realize the considerable personal and political risk Obama is taking in selecting so many powerful, strong-willed people to his team. If he's not up to snuff, things will get very messy as the leaks and tell-all books begin to come out.
That said, forcing people to sign prenups is going too far the other way. The way to instill loyalty is to earn it by respecting your people and, first and foremost, proving that you are a capable leader. It won't stop people bent on mischief, but it will likely reduce the fallout from their revelations in any case.
Posted by: tacitus | December 11, 2008 4:02 PM
Bad idea? That's brilliant! We need to get on this right away, a political pin-up calendar.
Who will be what month? I'm thinking Ron Paul can be the pin-up for the 13th month, Smarch!
Posted by: Skemono | December 11, 2008 10:39 PM
Does Miller attempt to justify this in any way? What possible use could such a policy have? If Obama is good and honest, forcing him to account for what he does will not bother him in any way (he may even welcome it), while if he turns out to be a crook, forcing to account for what he does is the only way to prevent four more years of Bush-like abuse.
Only in some cases involving national security could this apply, and then I'm sure that there are many people who use that term WAY too loosely.
Posted by: Valhar2000 | December 12, 2008 6:43 AM
Valhar2000:
In the case of legitimate national security, this should already be adequately handled by existing nondisclosure agreements for classified information. So there's no need for another agreement like this.
Of course, the Bush definition of "national security" seems to include "covering up the outing of CIA agents for political reasons", so the term is dangerously close to losing all meaning.
Posted by: phantomreader42 | December 12, 2008 5:09 PM