I’m not an insider, and so my only basis for speculation is my observations of the m.o. of this administration over the last several years. Central to that m.o. is the administration’s need to operate secretly and without oversight. Central to that m.o. is the stance that nobody is going to tell it what it should do or put any constraints on its freedom of action. Central to that m.o. is having lackeys in critical positions who will follow orders without question.
Its a feudal mentality in which the minor lords owe their fealty to those above them in the hierarchy, and in turn those higher up promise their protection. Gonzales’s role in the administration symbolizes this fealty system, and throwing him off the bus is a greater threat to the perverse integrity of that system than other political or legal considerations. That’s the hypothesis. We’ll see if future events support it.
Add to this idea that flouting the rule of law is an integral part of this administration’s culture–it’s an intrinsic part of the right-wing culture that shapes the mentality of this administration. The law is meant for others, not them, and one gets the sense that flouting it is a point of pride within this warped right-wing world. These are cowboy vigilantes who know what’s right and don’t need no laws to tell ’em.
It has been at least as far back as the Reagan administration’s flouting the Boland Amendment during the Iran-Contra affair. The actors within this culture see themselves as so many Jack Bauers doing what they have to do to
save the country from its enemies. All the rest of us who insist on the rule of law are naive sissies who can’t deal with the nasty truth that there
are bad guys who want to do us harm. It’s southern plantation or big ranch logic in the minds of the Bushies, but the rest of the country buys it through a kind of high school logic. Who do you want to protect you? The muscular morons on the football team (Hannity), or the nerds on the debate team and chess club (Colmes)? It’s a primitive way of imagining the alternatives, but I think it accurately reflects the current state of the country’s political imagination.
Anyway, back to Gonzales: If we had a normal administration or an administration that operated within the normal legal constraints and within the traditions of checks and balances, a guy like Alberto Gonzales would never have been appointed in the first place and would never have passed the confirmation process. But guys like Arlen Specter still seem to think we’re operating under the old rules, and I think that’s the basis for his thinking that Gonzales will resign rather than face a no-confidence vote from the Senate. I question whether that’s enough. I’m probably wrong about this, buy my cynicism has reached such a heightened level, that my first response is why should a no-confidence vote change anything? This administration doesn’t care what a Democratic Senate thinks, and even if a majority of Republicans voted with the Democrats, nobody pushes George Bush around.
Add to that the problem of replacing Gonzales with somebody who the Senate might insist has some integrity, and the administration’s increased vulnerability to further indictments. Why should Bush push Gonzales out? My guess is that he won’t do it unless it becomes clear that Congress intends to impeach the Attorney General.
Update: This from Bush later today–
"He has done nothing wrong," Bush said in an impassioned defense of his longtime friend and adviser during a news conference at his Texas ranch. . . .
"I stand by Al Gonzales, and I would hope that people would be more sober in how they address these important issues," Bush said. "And they ought to get the job done of passing legislation, as opposed to figuring out how to be actors on the political theater stage."
Leave a Reply