Established 1916

Search ogb.wfu.edu

 

 

 

 

 

Shadow government secrecy appropriate
By Chris Plumblee
Student Columnist

In the past week, the Democrats in places of power in Washington and elsewhere have been complaining about President George W. Bush’s contingency plan in case the war on terror should end up on the White House Lawn. Headlines in the New York Times and elsewhere claimed that Bush’s propensity towards secrecy suited this plan to a "T."

They claim that the administration already seeks to do away with checks and balances and wants Congress to write them a blank check for the war on terror, so this effort to preserve the executive branch in case of a national catastrophe is nothing more than they expected. I say that that’s baloney!

I mean, if the unthinkable happened and something did occur in Washington, then wouldn’t you want to know that the government wouldn’t go to some congressperson simply because he or she happened to be visiting home at the time of the attack and he or she was senior to every other senator or representative who was also outside Washington?

I think it’s much better to have some sort of structure in place already rather than relying on chance. As for those who complain about the government being exclusive, not including people from the legislative and judicial branches, I say that the legislative and judicial branches are responsible for their own rescue in the event of attack. I’m not convinced that there is nothing available for Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle and his cronies in Congress if a terrorist attack in Washington should threaten their lives. In fact, I’d be extremely surprised if this is the case.

This is simply another matter of the complicit media being excited about something that makes Bush look bad. The media was willing to trumpet the secret nature of the hideout, and the exclusivity of it, as a sign that Bush isn’t considering the Democrats, primarily in the legislative branch, as important in the grand scheme of things. Sources like the New York Times make out like Bush has done a bad thing by ensuring that the government is continued in the event of a disaster.

In contrast to the complaints about exclusivity, I find it heartening that the government can continue with only a few people. Most sources have found the number to be around 150, which I think is remarkable, considering how bloated the federal bureaucracy has become.

Think about it folks, if 150 people can effectively run the government, then about 99.95 percent of the government workers are non-essential. When the Republicans talk about shrinking big government, that’s what they’re talking about. The fact that to effectively run the government takes such a small percentage of the people that it currently takes to run it makes me happy, but it makes people like Tom Daschle incredibly sad.

Since Bush has recognized this fact, I’m optimistic that the government will continue to shrink. I don’t advocate a 150-person federal government, but I think there are a lot of wasted paychecks paid every week by the federal government, and every little bit of saved money helps tremendously.

The "Shadow Government" trumpeted in the media has precedent as well. Until the Soviet Union was brought to its knees, every president up until Reagan was prepared to go the huge bunker at Greenbriar, W.Va., and live there if the threat of nuclear war was imminent, and that included Democrats as well as Republicans.

The fact that nobody knew about the auxiliary government outside of a few Washington power-brokers made it all the more effective. If a secret bunker were no longer secret, it would be of no use.

In summary, I think it’s stupid to complain about the government continuing after a disaster strikes Washington, and I don’t think it says anything about the status of Bush’s administration that he didn’t choose to tell a joint session of Congress that he was establishing a contingency plan.

I’m glad that the government can be run with 150 people, and I’m optimistic that this ideal, of the smallest possible government, might be implemented in the future.