[icopyright one button toolbar]
Conor Friedersdorf points out that Hillary doesn’t really want the electorate to know what our government is up to. We’re learning not about her support but rather her battles with “transparency.”
I think a lot of us figured Hillary out back in ’08. But the issue is even more relevant today as the latest news confirms her disregard for, well, the partnership that democracy demands of appointed and elected leaders with the people.
On January 13, 2009, Hillary Clinton attended her first confirmation hearing as a Secretary of State nominee. The same day, with Bush officials still under fire for using private email accounts to circumvent public records laws, someone registered Clintonemail.com, a domain that now appears to be at the center of a scandal. “Mrs. Clinton did not have a government email address during her four-year tenure at the State Department,” The New York Times reported in a story published late Monday. “Her aides took no actions to have her personal emails preserved on department servers at the time, as required by the Federal Records Act.” …Friedersdorf,Atlantic
“This,” Friedersdorf comments, “was willful, flagrant disregard for public records rules.”
We’re facing an issue that threatens to shred what’s left of our democracy. We have a government that relies on secrecy and lack of accountability while increasing its surveillance of the people. Are we willing to elect a president who has already demonstrated not just her willingness to play along but to mimic the arrogance of Bush-Cheney in her behaviors towards the electorate?
Steve Aftergood writes at Secrecy News — a watchdog blog sponsored by the Federation of American Scientists — about a new book on government secrecy: “Reclaiming Accountability.”
The U.S. Constitution does not explicitly recognize a “public right to know.” But without reliable public access to government information, many features of constitutional government would not make sense. Citizens would not be able to evaluate the performance of their elected officials. Freedom of speech and freedom of the press would be impoverished. Americans’ ability to hold their government accountable for its actions would be neutered. ...SecrecyNews
But this isn’t just about government functionaries. We also need candidates for office who are, well, candid.
The author introduces the term “substantive accountability,” which she contrasts with mere “formal accountability.” While formal accountability includes such things as the right to vote, substantive accountability requires that people must “have multiple opportunities to discover information relevant to their votes….” …SecrecyNews