COLUMN: Obama not keeping promise of transparency

Tuesday, January 12, 2010 | 12:01 a.m. CST; updated 9:37 a.m. CDT, Wednesday, May 12, 2010

Anyone who disputes or claims not to remember Democratic Party and media charges that “the Bush administration is the most secretive in history” spent the past eight years emulating Rip Van Winkle or is in the throes of serious denial. Or, perhaps, is first cousin to an ostrich.

For those who doubt or feign ignorance, I offer the following from the transition Web site, “The Bush administration has been the most secretive, closed administration in American history. An Obama presidency will use cutting edge technologies to reverse this dynamic, creating a new level of transparency, accountability and participation by America’s citizens.”

President Obama pledged also to end the angry partisanship in Washington — in all fairness, though, a promise also of Bill Clinton and George Bush. The political ill will prevailing limits the chance for success; however, he harms his cause with spiteful rhetoric aimed at Republicans, ill-advised stunts such as banning FOX News from a White House briefing and a propensity for blaming his predecessor in virtually every public address for the difficulties he inherited.

Admittedly, while many agree with this plaint, it is neither presidential nor dignified. This is the first time in my memory that a sitting president publicly disparaged his predecessor – let us hope he outgrows it. After all, did he not campaign as if he wanted the responsibility with all its warts and liabilities?

That this president did not create nor increase partisan bickering is a given: The last administration to operate with an air of cooperation and statesmanship was President Reagan’s. Much of that success stemmed from quality, adult leadership in Congress; the House Speaker was Thomas “Tip” O’Neill, the Minority Leader was Bob Michel while the Senate Majority and Minority Leaders were Democrat Robert Byrd and Republicans Howard Baker and Bob Dole.

While fiercely partisan, these gentlemen understood cooperation, coordination and even compromise in fashioning legislation designed for the nation’s continued well-being. Historic presidential priority legislation passed with more Republican support than Democratic was the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and The North American Free Trade Act in 1994. The last occasion that President Bush enjoyed any real bipartisan support was in the Iraq War Resolution in 2002 – the Senate voted 77 to 23 and the House 296 to 156 to approve. That atmosphere of civil cooperation was short-lived.

This administration’s pledge of full transparency and ending the more odious elements of partisanship is doomed unless the president, the House speaker and the Senate majority leader practice as they have preached. Their endless blaming of the previous administration is a sham – it is time to deliver on their promise of change.

Among the president’s campaign pledges were promises to post legislation requiring his signature for five days online and not only make the health care debate public but also televise the negotiations on C-SPAN, only one of his first 11 signings (DTV Delay Act) made it online for the promised 5 days and the C-SPAN promise is not being honored.

In fairness, he cannot dictate the procedural functions of the legislature as that violates the separation of powers mandated by the Constitution. Moreover, transparency would threaten the introduction of earmarks, parochial amendments and other self-serving legislation. The five day White House rule would dictate a more careful and open process, one applauded in public but privately abhorred as old habits of chicanery die hard.

Nevertheless, as titular head of the party in power and owner of the bully pulpit, he has the capacity to influence the way legislative business is done – that it is accomplished openly and at the very least with a stab at across-the-aisle unity. Instead, abetted by his encouragement, this legislation is poised to bypass the traditional conference committee and exclude Republican participation, an unusual closed proceeding, ceding total power to the speaker, the majority leader and the White House.

This has been done before, but it is a rarity for a bill of this importance and controversy, particularly when the majority of the public does not support the legislation. C-SPAN network’s Brian Lamb has, in a letter to the leaders of both parties, offered to cover the negotiations live, thereby giving the president the opportunity to make good on his campaign promise. To date, the response can be characterized as “Thanks, but no thanks.”

That the Democrats have the power to send this bill to the president without Republican participation or input is not in dispute, nor is it a secret that both parties are at odds in the debate. But, is it wise to declare your opposition’s and the public’s doubts unfounded and sign it into law just because you can?

“Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely,” Lord John Acton, 1887.

J. Karl Miller retired as a colonel in the Marine Corps. He is a Columbia resident and can be reached via e-mail at

Like what you see here? Become a member.

Show Me the Errors (What's this?)

Report corrections or additions here. Leave comments below here.

You must be logged in to participate in the Show Me the Errors contest.


carissa jo January 12, 2010 | 12:30 a.m.

Express your support for Obama Health care plan at

(Report Comment)
Christopher Foote January 12, 2010 | 10:40 a.m.

I'm a little confused by this statement: "Historic presidential priority legislation passed with more Republican support than Democratic was the Civil Rights Act of 1964..."
Here are the final vote tallies for the Civil Rights Act of 1964:
153 Aye
91 Nay
136 Aye
35 Nay
46 Aye
21 Nay
27 Aye
6 Nay
In both the House and the Senate more Democrats than Republicans voted for the bill. Also the lead-in suggests that Reagan and Byrd supported this legislation, they did not. Lastly, if the House and Senate were to vote on this bill today I doubt any Democrats would oppose it, unfortunately the same can not be said of today's Republican party. I base this latter view on their 2006 opposition to renewing the Voting Rights Act of 1965, their opposition to Lily Ledbetter's Fair Pay Act of 2009, and their overall disdain for any and all legislation seeking to ameliorate the structural and cultural barriers in our society that disadvantage minority groups.

(Report Comment)
Don Milsop January 12, 2010 | 5:34 p.m.

Ronald Reagan was against the Civil Rights Act of 1964 because he viewed it as government intrusion. Later he admitted that was a mistake, and quoting Reagan, "I favor the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and it must be enforced at gunpoint if necessary."

As for Robert Byrd, he has continued to be a racist, as is clearly evident from his past comments, even in recent times. Yet the Dems continued to reelect him, time and again.

Noting the vote for the 1964 Civil Rights Act:

Dem for 62.7%
GOP for 79.5%

Dem for 68.7%
GOP for 81.8%

Of course more Dems voted for the law. There were more Dems in congress. But as a percentage, far more Republicans voted for passage than Dems.

(Report Comment)
Gregg Bush January 14, 2010 | 12:11 p.m.

Not even a year has gone by -
Best check your facts from a reputable source.
You see, there are people who actually study secrecy/transparency - they are educated and thoughtful. They don't pick political sides.
And then there are those who are uneducated, cherry-pick incomplete data and whine. They play politics, point fingers, and muddy the landscape with half-truths and opinion masquerading as fact.
And then there are those that are smart enough to know that they can't be an expert in everything and defer to reasonable people who actually study issues. Study in the real world - not from an armchair.
I must admit that there is still not enough transparency/accountability in federal government for what I would like. However, I didn't just discover it, and some progress is being made.

As for the "good old days" argument or the "remember when" argument or the "things ain't like they used to be" argument or the "things were great once" argument or the...
Just doesn't hold water.

(Report Comment)

Leave a comment

Speak up and join the conversation! Make sure to follow the guidelines outlined below and register with our site. You must be logged in to comment. (Our full comment policy is here.)

  • Don't use obscene, profane or vulgar language.
  • Don't use language that makes personal attacks on fellow commenters or discriminates based on race, religion, gender or ethnicity.
  • Use your real first and last name when registering on the website. It will be published with every comment. (Read why we ask for that here.)
  • Don’t solicit or promote businesses.

We are not able to monitor every comment that comes through. If you see something objectionable, please click the "Report comment" link.

You must be logged in to comment.

Forget your password?

Don't have an account? Register here.