Thank you, Linda Monk; I couldn't agree with you more.
In my experience
, when someone acts as if he has something to hide, people become suspicious
. Particular
ly in this contentiou
s political atmosphere
. Being a public servant in a democratic republic in such a climate requires transparen
cy, and that was what Obama seemed to understand when he was a candidate for the office of the presidency
. He ran on transparen
cy on the heels of an administra
tion that operated in secrecy, as a dictatorsh
ip, had brought this nation to destructio
n. No sooner did Obama get into office than he's adopted all of the previous administra
tion's secrecy tactics and policies, even going them one better.
We make a covenant with our government
. We agree to a democratic republic, where other people make the laws under which we agree to abide (and that will be applied to everyone), as long as we get to choose who those people are who will be making the laws. It's on the basis of trust, and when you act sneakily, as if you have something to hide, people tend to question and doubt you.
When we no longer trust in the process, when we no longer trust that the selection process by which our elected representa
tives is fair and accurate, or that the laws don't apply equally to all, or that our elected representa
tives have deceived us, then all bets are off. And no government can stand once that happens.
Even if what's being attributed to raclsm is accurate (it may be true for some, but not for all or even most), so what? Producing documentat
ion is no skin off Obama's nose. It's how you build trust. You meet each and every demand, especially when it's so astounding
ly elementary (and Constituti
onally required), and so obviously easy to comply with.
When people on both sides of the aisle cite good reasons for distrustin
g Obama, I have to wonder about the cognitive abilities of his 'most ardent admirers' who opposed the same behavior when it done by Bush-Chene
y.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
No comments:
Post a Comment