Secrecy Under Scrutiny
The ability of the press to independently report on the activities of government is being restricted--by the threat of subpoenas and by a series of prosecutions in which the government claims a new right to control discussion of classified information. The upshot is that it is becoming harder and harder for the press to report on national security policy. It often seems that Congress knows no more about what's going on than what it reads in the paper. And if what is published in the paper is restricted, then Congress will know even less.
Why is there such a lack of oversight?
We are paying a price for one-party control of both the executive and legislative branches of government. Under any other arrangement, we would have a much more dynamic political process, with investigative hearings, subpoenas, and a much more probing form of oversight.
Sounds as if you're blaming this on the Republicans.
Not really. There are strong liberal and conservative arguments for reducing secrecy. Liberals tend to stress government accountability and responsiveness to public needs. Conservatives want to ensure that the government does not exceed its legitimate authority. Secrecy is at odds with both of those impulses.
What worries you the most?
What I'm concerned about is that we may lose sight of our own ideals as a society. We may lose the expectation of open, accountable government. We will simply assume that the most important political decisions are out of reach and beyond our ability to affect.
That's a scary thought.
I think that's the path we're headed towards. We are on our way to having our national policies determined by unnamed and unknown bureaucrats who sit behind closed doors and are inaccessible. Look, we don't want a copy of every record in government, but we should want every record in government to be available, unless there is a very good reason for withholding it. That is the goal we need to strive for. Secrecy aggravates the problem; openness can help resolve it.
advertisement
