Of the principles that I'd like to make the basis for this blog, Choose The Third Way stands at the heart of them. The basic idea is simple: the world is far too complicated to be binary, so, often, when a dilemma is proposed, it is done so to force a choice. My way, or the highway -- well, nobody likes the highway, alone, without a car, in the desert heat. You're either with us or against us. Actually, I'm both.
I'm very much against "us," where us is the Administration of the US Government, because we're currently run by a crowd of kleptocratic lawbreakers. But I'm very much with "us" because I'm against the criminalization of politics. Actually that's the wrong way around: the politicization of crime. One of the dangers of the mobsters at the top being prosecuted for breaking the laws they have is that it gives them the chance to say that the Democrats are getting back at them for Clinton's impeachment. Sure, that's idiotic (to many of us), but it's also very plausible. Wikipedia proves that the plausible is as good as the true to those who aren't paying close attention.
But we can't let them get away with it. Nixon's gang of thieves got away with it and encouraged our current asshats. Both from an ideal of justice and from a practical disincentive point of view, something must be done.
But when "something" means running the risk of losing credibility, Senator Obama is right in saying we should be like President Ford. This is the idiocy of false dilemmas.
Because this dilemma is actually a symptom of deeper malaise: our Justice Department's independence is protected by tradition, nothing more. The President nominates an Attorney General, and the Senate confirms him. This guarantees that an Attorney General is chosen by the President, and thus at a disadvantage in trying to protect the country from his Administration.
There are usually more options than the few that leap to mind, especially if you're primed for a dilemma. Here are a few bad ways that we could do this: we could directly elect an attorney general, making it a political post. We could ask the Supreme Court to nominate an attorney general, which would be ridiculous. We could ask the American Bar Association or the Governor's Association to nominate one. We could choose one at random from the US Attorneys.
Often, someone will think of one of these and use it to bolster their position: What else would you have us do, have the lawyers choose our Attorney General?" This is why, when faced with a dilemma, the right answer is to search for a third, better way. In this particular case, we want a third way that is both feasible and relatively easy to implement.
Here's mine: In 2009, after our new (hopefully) Democratic President takes the oath of office, s/he speaks about the loss of faith that we have experienced in the Justice Department and how the lack of an impartial Attorney General has hurt our country greatly. S/he asks the nation to accept a change of plan: from now on, the Attorney General will be chosen by all three branches of Government. The Senate will create a list of 10 nominees, who must be individually voted unanimously onto the list. The Supreme Court will give each nominee the nod should they, in the Supreme Court's opinion, be considered adequately experienced and independent for the position, the way a good prosecutor should be. The President will select from that list.
Many will argue with me that this is simply a change of tradition, and will not hold sway should a President decide to ignore it. Ultimately, however, the Senate must still confirm a nominee, and so should the Senate decide that this is the proper method, they have the power to enforce it.
