From “it’s an ongoing investigation” to “that’s classified” to “it would be a threat to national security to tell you that” to citing “executive privilege,” government bodies — from the White House to the Athens Police Department — often don’t want information to be public. And typically there’s a good reason (for example, the Athens City School District this week did not want The Post to publish the location students are escorted to when there’s a bomb threat because officials worried it could compromise student safety).
You’ll hear a lot of talk nowadays about whether President Barack Obama’s administration and White House are transparent enough.
For example, the White House press corps was outraged that Pete Souza, the White House photographer (who is an assistant professor in Ohio University’s School of Visual Communication on extended leave of absence with plans to return), had exclusive access to Obama and former President George W. Bush aboard Air Force One when they flew to Nelson Mandela’s funeral.
One journalist, during a press briefing, suggested that Bush’s White House — yes, the one that created the secret NSA programs the world is now pissed about — was more open than Obama’s.
Part of these accusations against the White House probably spring from a bold move Obama made during the first few days of his presidency, when he pledged — without having any previous experience in executive office — that “my administration is committed to creating an unprecedented level of openness in government,” according to a White House memo.
He created high expectations for himself.
Obama went on: “Transparency promotes accountability and provides information for citizens about what their government is doing. Information maintained by the federal government is a national asset. My Administration will take appropriate action, consistent with law and policy, to disclose information rapidly in forms that the public can readily find and use.”
Now part of the political system Obama criticized during the 2008 campaign, the administration, many argue, focuses a lot more on “(when) consistent with law and policy” and less on the “unprecedented level of openness in government” part of that memo.
Prediction: Obama’s legacy won’t be similar to Bush’s or Bill Clinton’s, both cases in which a legacy was clearly carved out. Immediately after leaving office, it was pretty clear that Bush’s legacy is knee-jerk, post-9/11 policy that is to this day being ripped to shreds by the international community. Clinton left America’s budget with more revenue than expenses for the first time in modern history (which, I think it’s important to note, was a trajectory that Bush, facing two wars, completely reversed).
Likely, Obama’s legacy will best be judged much after he’s left office, similar to Harry Truman’s.
Second prediction: Obama’s legacy will rely much less on his administration’s transparency than it will on how closely his policies — currently secret or not — were in line with his landmark 2008 campaign platform. Did the Affordable Care Act work or did it not? Is America off its decade-long war footing or isn’t it? Do extremists in the Middle East want to kill Americans more or less than before January 2009?
Unlike with Bush and Clinton, few hallmarks of the Obama presidency can with lasting merit be judged rapidly like balancing the budget (an obvious thumbs up) or torturing people (an obvious, and internationally-recognized, thumbs down).
So, stay tuned, folks.
Joshua Jamerson is a junior studying journalism and local editor at The Post. What do you think Obama’s legacy will be? Shoot Joshua an email at jj360410@ohiou.edu.
