One of the dangers of these polarized times, and of the 2- or 3-Sigma behavior of Trump and his Administration, is that it invites similarly extreme opposition, and acceptance of behavior of that is generally frowned upon, justified as “Well, Trump is an ass-hat, and so are the people who work for him, and civility is not a suicide pact, so do whatever is necessary to bring this regime down, or at least render it impotent.”
I am not unsympathetic to that position.
But I think it’s of value also to examine what one would consider civility, and what norms ought to be.
If there’s a meeting at the White House, or amongst White House staff, how outraged should we be that the contents are leaked to the press?
There are two parts to this. First, insistence that the contents are leaked in a reasonably accurate fashion. A leak that says that Trump bit off the head of a live puppy, whereas he merely kicked it across the room, is not good. Trump’s use of “Fake News!” to label anything that criticizes him can only be criticized if the “Fake News” is actually reasonably accurate.
The second part is … um, well, yeah, actually, I think I’m okay with that, within certain bounds.
There are certain discussions that take place regarding material that is either secret from a national security perspective (e.g., impending military actions), or confidential from a personal privacy perspective (e.g., HR matters). Leaking that level of stuff is wrong without some hugely countervening reason, and even in such cases the leaker should be willing to take the consequences.
But aside from that … there’s something to be said for transparency in government, even through closed doors. And much of the call for the heads of leakers is not because what they leaked was untrue, or that it wasn’t something that was of interest to the general public, but because it was embarrassing, or inconvenient.
The test for such matters is, I suppose, “If this happened in an administration that you supported — reporting of embarrassing or impolitic comments in meetings, leaking of political plans, etc. — would you still disagree with that level of transparency?”
In other words, is it the tactic I approve of, or the circumstances under which it is employed. Am I being hypocritical?
It may be that the reality of this shambolic Trump Administration means that, even if it inconveniences or embarrasses a different administration I like, I might be willing to have similar shenanigans amongst that staff as a safety valve against something more Trumplike in the future. Or at least have the level of such shenanigans indicate how disliked within its own ranks an administration is.
I’m not thrilled by that. But it might be necessary, given the current precedent.
Five White House Staffers Leak Meeting About White House Leaks
Presumably there will also be leaks from the meeting about stopping the leaks from leak meetings.
Hahahahahaha!
A Pee Pee Meeting?
Five White House Staffers Leak xxxvideofullx1.dynv6.net/lol/7a.html
+Dave Hill my first test is always "Am I being a hypocrite?" No matter what the topic. It has caused some people to ask the ever popular "Just whose side are you on?" but that doesn't worry me.
Yeah staff leaking information that is supposedly "Confidential" is generally bad, but I like your question of (paraphrased) "If the shoe was on the other foot, would the leak be acceptable to you?"
Another question is WHY something is leaked. The leak may be to promote a policy – if people know that the President is considering a policy, then outsiders have the opportunity to comment favorably. Maybe the leak may be to promote a person. Or perhaps someone opposes a policy, or wants to make a person look bad.
Leaks are obviously not a new thing, but one thing that seems new is the documenting of how many people leak something. Perhaps this is the press’ attempt to vouch for the leak – if five people said it (even if the five people said different things), it must be true.
+John E. Bredehoft I definitely think that's part of it; it's not quite brand new, but the media have been making a point of noting the number mentioning all or some of the story off the record. Understandable, both because of the zaniness of some of the things leaked out, and because of Trump's repeated assertions that the "Fake Media" is both lying and acting to destroy him and the nation.
I’m reading a book about a new President who was very experienced in some things, but inexperienced in executive politics (he had never been a governor or mayor). He wanted to be his own chief of staff, but his administration had inconsistent messages, was unable to implement its policies, and had huge warring factions.
The President? Gerald Ford.
How did he solve it? By finally agreeing (despite past examples of Haldenan and Haig) to appoint his own chief of staff (Rumsfeld)…and to pretty much let him do his job.
Of course it helped that Ford rarely denigrated his people.
Between 2009 and 2016, prosecutors filed nine Espionage Act cases involving leaks or suspected leaks — triple the number under all previous presidents.
Still, some of the biggest leaks in history came on Obama's watch.https://www.politico.com/story/2017/08/03/trump-presidents-vent-over-leaks-241306