Rules of Engagement

by Scot Faulkner and Jonathan Riehl

IRS, Associated Press, Benghazi - It has been a sad month for America. The Nixonian turn of the Obama Administration has threatened basic liberties and trust, while the turn down the rabbit hole of the Congressional Republicans has undermined basic roles and responsibilities of the Legislative Branch.

Holding power accountable is a vital and fundamental part of America’s civic culture. The First Amendment’s protections for free speech, and Article I of the Constitution outlining Congress’s powers and responsibility to protect the use of public funds, are pillars that hold our government and society together. Recent actions by both the Executive and Legislative Branches raise alarm.

As President Truman famously declared, “the buck stops here” at the President’s desk. No matter how much President Obama declares his innocence; no matter how much the President asserts he only learned about every problem from watching the news; he is responsible for the actions of the Executive Branch. Intimidation of citizens and the media, violations of privacy, violations of law, and covering-up facts are ultimately the fault of the person who sets the tone, and governs, the Executive Branch. If subordinates were “rogue”, then find out who and find out why. No second or third level functionary wakes-up one morning and decides to create national policy without receiving orders or telling others. To maintain otherwise insults the intelligence of all Americans. The alternative is an admission of gross negligence and incompetence emanating from the Oval Office.

The role of Congress is to use its oversight powers and responsibilities to expose and address illegal, unethical, and unseemly acts of federal officials. This oversight role has been an integral part of Congress since President George Washington. It is the key element of balancing powers among the three branches of the federal government.

Oversight is about truth seeking. When Congress uses this power to create fantasy instead of fact it disserves the institution and the public. The egregious performances by Executive Branch officials have unfortunately been equaled by over-the-top rhetoric and drama by Members of Congress. There is a fundamental problem with the rhetorical strategy of the GOP, and it is evident in these recent hearings. When there are failures in the functioning of government, it is up to Congress to investigate and call them to account. In these recent matters at State, Justice, and the IRS, the duty is obvious. It’s how the House majority has gone about it that is so problematic.

This is especially disappointing because Republicans have a strong record on oversight. In recent history, nothing stands out more than the Watergate hearings, to which many allusions have been made.

In 1973, the wrongdoings of the Nixon administration were brought to light by responsible, bipartisan hearings in which we heard memorable lines from the likes of GOP Senator Howard Baker, asking calmly, “What did the President know, and when did he know it?” The stakes were high. The modesty of the questioning allowed for the public to come to its own conclusions. The facts drove the investigation. Chairing the hearings was Democratic Senator Sam Ervin, of North Carolina. While there was certainly shrill demonizing of Nixon and the Republicans by liberals, this rancor was shut-out of the Ervin Hearings.

Republican leaders in Congress have their hands full. When Chairman Issa, and other “adults”, hold sway, the tone of the hearings hearken to the Ervin hearings. However, less seasoned Republicans on these committees, and those speaking on the House Floor, drown out the search for truth with “truther” style rhetoric. No matter how much some Republicans hate Obama, their best strategy is to let the petulance of Executive Branch witnesses drill holes in the Administration’s boat. When Republicans use their interrogation time to spout conspiracy theories instead of fact finding they divert attention from Obama onto themselves. They also waste precious time. They should be asking questions designed to peel back the “onion layers” to expose the rot. There will be plenty of time to assail the Obama Administration, once the facts, or the lies, are in hand.

The poor performance of both interrogators and interrogatees continue Washington, DC’s downward spiral into hyper-partisanship and perpetual campaigning. Every utterance seems aimed at producing the next soundbite for partisan pundits or campaign ads. Congressional hearings should enlighten and build trust, not become a fodder for comedians where the Members are mouthing their own punch lines.

Scot Faulkner served in the Reagan White House and as Chief Administrative Officer of the U.S. House of Representatives. Jonathan Riehl, J.D., Ph.D., is a communications consultant for political campaigns and national nonprofit organizations, a former speechwriter for Luntz Research, and an instructor in Communications Studies.

The Icarus Presidency

Irony abounds as events unravel the best laid plans of the Obama Administration. A terrorist attack made the Bush Presidency. Now a terrorist attack is unmaking Obama’s.

It was the terrorist attack on September 11, 2001 that launched President George W. Bush into a heroic trajectory. The attack rallied America and the world to a Presidency that had been born in controversy and mired in mediocrity. Emboldened by a real mandate, Bush and the Republican Party played out their strong hand, winning the 2002 off-year elections and galloping to a solid re-election in 2004. However, their hubris made them sloppy. Poorly planned adventures in Afghanistan and Iraq became expensive and bloody quagmires. In 2005, Hurricane Katrina exposed epic incompetence and the failings of a crony-ridden Administration. The Republicans imploded, losing the Congress in 2006 and the White House in 2008. Except for the Tea Party boomlet of 2010, they have wandered in the political wilderness ever since.

The April 15, 2013 terrorist attack in Boston is having the opposite effect on President Obama. His Administration began with a solid win wrapped in idealism and the promise of historic changes. Despite the Tea Party Congressional backlash of 2010, Obama moved his agenda and his world view forward.

After his decisive re-election on November 6, 2012, Obama took full advantage of shell-shocked Republicans. He outmaneuvered Republicans on tax increases and the debt ceiling, but stumbled on maximizing the Sequester’s impact to support his assertion that “government is the solution”. His Sequester missteps, and the desert whirlwind swirling around the September 11, 2012 Benghazi attack, seemed to be contained in the political margins of Fox News and conservative talk radio. Then two bombs destroyed the calm of Boston. Their ripple effects have become a tsunami potentially pushing Obama into early lame duck status or worse.

Obama’s world view, trumpeted by the mainstream media, is that once you eliminate Osama bin Laden the global war on terror can move to the back burner. On May 2, 2011, Obama took credit for a nearly ten year search and destroy mission led by career intelligence officials. With Osama dead, and remote controlled drones picking off terrorists at will, America was safe.

The Boston attack jarred Americans back to reality. Questions about CIA and FBI complacency, causing them to miss early warning signs, have yet to be adequately addressed. Obama’s and the mainstream media’s rush to dismissively compare the Tsarnaev brothers with the Columbine shooters opened the door for questioning the Administration’s competence and their motivations.

Obama’s failure to control perceptions about Boston are echoed in Obama’s containment strategy on the Benghazi attack, which is falling apart every minute highly credible career officials remain in front of Congressional and media microphones. Was Obama’s rush to brand the Benghazi attack as a demonstration gone tragically wrong part of a larger scheme to create a false parallel world? Once Americans start looking at Osama’s death as a side show, not the finale, in the war on terror then everything is open for inquiry. Did Obama and Clinton hamper rescue efforts and then investigations in order to maintain the fiction of “game over”? Did intelligence agencies succumb to this “game over” mentality and not ring any alarm bells on the Tsarnaevs and their friends? Is Obama covering something up? Did Obama’s obsession with the “game over” story line lead to American deaths in Benghazi and Boston?

Obama’s growing problems with Benghazi and Boston have other ripple effects. The moment terrorists can move at will and undetected between America and their home bases immigration reform becomes less about pandering for Hispanic votes and more about homeland security. The moment terrorists combine pressure cookers, toy batteries, and fireworks into devices to cause mass carnage; gun control becomes less about removing weapons from violent people and more about the violent people themselves. Obama’s winter policy momentum has bogged down in reality.

Obama’s wax wings are melting under the bright light of scrutiny. Obamacare, his one soaring accomplishment, is now crumbling into a morass of “devil is in the detail” disclosures. The Stock Market may be reaching new heights, but the work force is falling to new lows as Americans take poor paying part time jobs and watch their spending capabilities shrink.

All these reality checks are breaching the rhetorical fortifications of Obama, the Democrats in Congress, and their media acolytes. The moment mainstream Americans openly wonder about what is really going on, there is no secondary line of defense behind which Obama and his supporters can regroup. Republicans sense an opportunity, but they remain in a wilderness of their own making with little interest in becoming self-aware or competent.

Leaders across America’s political spectrum desperately need to go to rehab. Until then, they will continue their respective plummets.