But you know what? I'm not going to. As far as I'm concerned, the fewer precedents this Administration sets the better.
I haven't always been this laid back. Just a few years ago, I thought the worst thing about the Supreme Court's inauguration gift was this paragraph:
The recount process, in its features here described, is inconsistent with the minimum procedures necessary to protect the fundamental right of each voter in the special instance of a statewide recount under the authority of a single state judicial officer. Our consideration is limited to the present circumstances, for the problem of equal protection in election processes generally presents many complexities. [link]
It seemed to me that the Court had decided the case wrongly. I still believe that. So why should I object to their thoughtful inclusion of a paragraph expressly allowing future cases to be decided correctly?
When President Bush included dozens of full colored glossy photographs of himself in his latest budget proposal, and later used those same images in campaign advertisements, I complained. It wasn't that I thought the budget proposal was likely to sway any swing voters. No, I was worried that a bad precedent had been set.
The same goes for the Administration's practice of ignoring inconvenient science. I never expected Bush to do a good job on the environment, to allow stem cell research, or let the kids know about condoms. What really bothered me was the precedent of manipulating government sponsored science for political gain.
And, of course, there's the invasion of Iraq. The arguments were bad and the dangers were misunderestimated, but what really upset me was that I didn't want my country to be the sort of nation that went around picking fights. Invading a country that hadn't attacked us, hadn't attacked anyone else, and wasn't even a threat to any other nation was, it seemed to me, a terrible precedent to set.
Which brings me back to the latest hullabaloo. Sure, if you look closely at the reasoning it seems a bit strained, but that's just the way it goes. The important thing is that the Bush White House has taught the rest of us something that'll be really useful.
If you don't want to set a precedent, all you have to do is say so.
There's just one thing that worries me. The first President Bush only served a single term. What if that didn't set a precedent?
Posted by: Zwichenzug on Mar 30, 04 | 7:27 pm
