The Place For Holder

Continuing on with a look at some of the key figures who will do the important work in Barack Obama's Administration who were introduced at yesterday's press conference, let's focus on Attorney General nominee Eric Holder. It's been interesting to see the split on the left over Holder, who has produced some strong views about closing Guantanamo and restoring the rule of law in recent years, but who has a creeping tendency to respond to power in dangerous ways. I tended to let Holder's involvement in the Marc Rich problem slide, but today's report by Eric Lichtblau and David Johnston suggests that I shouldn't.

Mr. Holder’s supporters portray him as having been a relatively uninvolved bystander caught in a Clinton-era controversy, the remarkable granting of a last-minute pardon by President Bill Clinton to a fugitive from justice. But interviews and an examination of Congressional records show that Mr. Holder, who at the time of the pardon was the deputy attorney general, was more deeply involved in the Rich pardon than his supporters acknowledge.

Mr. Holder had more than a half-dozen contacts with Mr. Rich’s lawyers over 15 months, including phone calls, e-mail and memorandums that helped keep alive Mr. Rich’s prospects for a legal resolution to his case. And Mr. Holder’s final opinion on the matter — a recommendation to the White House on the eve of the pardon that he was “neutral, leaning toward” favorable — helped ensure that Mr. Clinton signed the pardon despite objections from other senior staff members, participants said.

At the same time, Mr. Holder was not the sinister deal maker that his critics made him out to be. He let himself be drawn into the case by politically influential advocates, the review of the case shows, bypassing the usual Justice Department channels for reviewing pardon applications and infuriating prosecutors in New York who had brought the initial charges against Mr. Rich and his business partner.

I think that last paragraph makes Holder look worse. It shows he can be seduced by powerful interests into doing their bidding, which is also the concern with his advocacy for Chiquita Banana in their legal battle over their funding right-wing paramilitaries to kill labor organizers in Colombia.

Holder's recent speeches on the subject of the rule of law are first rate, and I think in general that he stands in the Democratic mainstream. My hope is that he protects the Constitution and enforces the laws of the nation. But actions speak louder than words. And while the Rich pardon is many years in the past, the way in which he acceded to the wishes of the politicially connected must be troubling.

Unless, like Glenn Greenwald, you see this as less of a character flaw and more of a symptom:

This is vintage Washington. This is the filthy, venal sleaze on which both political parties feed. It's what fuels how the Beltway operates. It's the leading cause of why it functions as a corrupt, dysfunctional, bloated, incestuous royal court. That's what Washington is. For that reason, it would be next to impossible to find people who have been a part of this system who haven't been infected -- or more accurately: who haven't infected themselves -- at one point or another with this disease.

More than anything else, Obama's endless invocation of the "change" mantra was not about promises of sharp ideological or even policy shifts -- as needed as those may be -- but instead, was about changing this core Beltway dynamic, delousing the Washington culture. A consensus has emerged, which I more or less share, that condemning the not-yet-inaugurated Obama presidency based merely on his appointments of establishment re-treads and war supporters is premature, irrational and unfair.

Obama has repeatedly said that his appointees are there to implement and carry out his agenda. There are reasons to believe Obama can and will carry through on his "change" commitments, and there are also ample, reasonable grounds for doubting that he will. Either way, though it's constructive to express views on his high-level appointments, it makes sense to wait to see what Obama himself actually does as President before assessing whether his commitments are illusory [...]

If you're someone who basically thinks that the Washington political system works fine and has been run by the Good, Serious Adults who rule over the rabble for their own good -- in other words, if you're Fred Hiatt or David Ignatius -- it makes perfect sense to celebrate these appointments. For anyone else, skepticism is warranted -- how could it not be? -- and praise and gratitude and celebratory Change parades make sense if and when they're actually warranted by actions. The closer one's proximity has been to the bipartisan Washington establishment, the less entitled they are -- not the more -- to a presumption of Magnanimous, Serious, Adult, Transformative leadership.

I think it is important to raise this skepticism, however, with a degree of balance or what have you, because we have already seen that a proper amount of pressure can actually extract results from the Obama transition. Because of pressure from the left, John Brennan will not be holding a top intelligence post, and in fact nobody associated with Bush's interrogation policies will be acceptable. I think Holder does not quite fit into that category, but there's plenty of reason to voice concern and make sure he is true to his most recent rhetoric.