Dear Friends and Colleagues:
The recent election in the <ns0:country-region w:insauthor="Unknown" w:insdate="2006-11-28T13:34:00Z" w:endinsauthor="Unknown" w:endinsdate="2006-11-28T13:34:00Z"><ns0:place w:insauthor="Unknown" w:insdate="2006-11-28T13:34:00Z" w:endinsauthor="Unknown" w:endinsdate="2006-11-28T13:34:00Z"><st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">United States</st1:place></st1:country-region></ns0:place></ns0:country-region> was of more than passing interest. As President Bush acknowledged, he and his Republican leadership team took a "thumping" at the hands of the voters.
Party control over the American Congress shifted for the first time since 1994, bringing an end to an era of American political history.
Even in my home state of <ns0:state w:insauthor="Unknown" w:insdate="2006-11-28T13:34:00Z" w:endinsauthor="Unknown" w:endinsdate="2006-11-28T13:34:00Z"><ns0:place w:insauthor="Unknown" w:insdate="2006-11-28T13:34:00Z" w:endinsauthor="Unknown" w:endinsdate="2006-11-28T13:34:00Z"><st1:state w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Minnesota</st1:place></st1:state></ns0:place></ns0:state> there was a rejection of Republicans across the board. The American people sent a message of disapproval this past election day. They obviously wanted a government more in line with different values than what they saw being practiced by the Republicans.
I agree with all those who say that disappointment with President Bush's policy in <ns0:country-region w:insauthor="Unknown" w:insdate="2006-11-28T13:34:00Z" w:endinsauthor="Unknown" w:endinsdate="2006-11-28T13:34:00Z"><ns0:place w:insauthor="Unknown" w:insdate="2006-11-28T13:34:00Z" w:endinsauthor="Unknown" w:endinsdate="2006-11-28T13:34:00Z"><st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Iraq</st1:place></st1:country-region></ns0:place></ns0:country-region> set the stage for the Republican rout, but other explanations of the defeat may be more telling in the long run. And, the lessons to be learned from Republican shortcomings should be warnings to Democrats as well as they assume power in the Congress and prepare for our presidential election in 2008.
If one were to apply the Caux Round Table Principles for Government (on our website, which is www.cauxroundtable.org) to the actions of the Republicans in power, one could easily argue that President Bush and his colleagues ignored key principles of moral government. (To be fair, however, Democrats have not always followed these principles as well.)
In the first place, let me suggest that the Bush Administration and the Republican leadership of the Congress forgot that a public office, first and foremost, is a public trust.
They abused the trust of the American people with self-serving actions and policies. Basing significant government actions on religious teachings, whether out of genuine belief in the teachings or merely to pander selfishly to a loyal constituency, is inconsistent with stewardship of a high public trust.
Any form of ideology, be it religious or secular, when used to inform the police power of the state diverts government from its central purpose of service to the common good. Ideology particularizes and minimizes the purposes of state authority, unempowers those with different beliefs, and brings about divisive partisanship. Bush and the Republicans were too beholden to the biblical literalism and the limiting beliefs of Protestant fundamentalists with respect to <ns0:country-region w:insauthor="Unknown" w:insdate="2006-11-28T13:34:00Z" w:endinsauthor="Unknown" w:endinsdate="2006-11-28T13:34:00Z"><ns0:place w:insauthor="Unknown" w:insdate="2006-11-28T13:34:00Z" w:endinsauthor="Unknown" w:endinsdate="2006-11-28T13:34:00Z"><st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Iraq</st1:place></st1:country-region></ns0:place></ns0:country-region>, the Palestinians, the way to fight the war on terror, and on a range of social and cultural issues such as stem cell research.
The management of a trust demands consideration of the ideas and interests of others; it is not a mandate to impose our values and standards on those for whom we are to care.
A Karl Rove type politics of using appeals to fear and greed (abortion, immigration, national security, and lower taxes), wedge issues as they are called, is not a politics worthy of trust or one deserving the privilege of holding office.
Second, Bush and the Republicans used the federal budget to take care of their own while the costs of higher education and health care were rising rapidly for most Americans. Ronald Reagan once vetoed an appropriations bill that contained only some 200 special earmarked expenditures to please voters at home. The most recent Republican appropriations bill contained over 6,000 earmarks. Wealthy Americans have done very well under the Republicans. CEO compensation is now impossible to justify on any terms of fairness. The top 1% owns some 20% of the nation's wealth. The needs of many special interests were met while the federal budget deficit grew apace.
Corruption and sleaze among Republican members of the House of Representatives further eroded the Republican claim of fidelity to the public trust just as they do when any politician or political party falls short in living up to stewardship responsibilities out of selfish financial interest.
The Bush Administration, with full support from Republicans in the House and Senate, also ignored the second principle of the CRT Principles for Government - that of always making decisions through the use of discourse ethics - open process and fair treatment for the ideas of others.
Bush famously called himself the "decider". As such, he did not need to heed others very much. His White House was not open to much input from the outside. His signing statements when he accepted congressional laws attempted to put him in a position of being able to ignore the wording passed by the Congress. This is a unilateral form of rule where personal discretion is free to be arbitrary and childish.
Republican leaders in the Congress did not compromise with Democrats and pushed them aside in the legislative process.
The Administration took for itself vast powers of interrogation and incarceration that could not be questioned in their implementation as part of its war on terror.
Secrecy and limited disclosure were the norm for the Bush White House. Loyalty and subservience -unquestioning obedience - were the personal characteristics most highly valued in Administrative appointments.
The failure to use discourse ethics brings about myopia in policy and estrangement from the people.
And, then, third, the Bush Administration with its party supporters in the Congress did not do much to promote the rule of law, another CRT principle of ethical government.
The President's signing statements actually undermined a 200 year constitutional tradition of separation of power and checks and balances. The Patriot Act making it easier to track and apprehend suspects in the war on terror cut back on civil liberties and rights of defense to criminal accusations. More unchecked discretion was therefore given to police and investigative authorities.
The Administration's unwillingness to live by standing international laws and practices on interrogation and incarcerations of suspects and enemies demonstrated a will to ignore the law when to do so was convenient and felt good.
Bringing ideological politics into the appointment of judges constituted a threat to the independence of the judiciary. Bush and the Republicans want judges who would rule or vote I might say the "right way" rather than use their character and judgment to follow the laws. More insidiously from my point of view, this attempt to politicize the judiciary exacerbated the already destructive and rampant cynicism that questions the transcendent objectivity of the law itself as well as the virtue of living by the law as something more important than political interests and passions.
I find it an interesting coincidence that an administration that did not follow some core principles of ethical government was unable to secure a mandate for continued control of the American federal government.
I also find it just as appropriate to apply our global CRT principles to the American government and business practices as it is to use them as guides to responsible behaviors in other countries.
I would hope that all those elected to serve in the new Congress will find it possible to subordinate partisan, factional, and personal interests to a higher calling - that of serving well a public trust.
I am thinking of sending to each member of our Senate and House of Representatives a copy of our Principles for Government with an invitation to contact us as to their implementation.
As always, I welcome your comments on these preliminary and tentative observations.
Sincerely,
Stephen B. Young
Global Executive Director
Caux Round Table