Presidential Prerogatives

Secrecy versus the right to know has grown into an important debate in terms of the restriction of presidential papers.

During the Watergate hangover years, lawmakers sought to reduce the aura of secrecy that existed around presidential papers. After Richard Nixon's administration, zealously guarded secrecy was seen as a catalyst for presidential misdeeds. Perhaps if presidential communications saw more scrutiny, they might themselves act in a more transparent manner. Additionally historians rejoiced in the idea that they could access crucial records more quickly.

The last two presidents have come under fire for restricting access to their papers. The New York Times recently blasted President Bush for adhering to a family "mania for secrecy." Five years ago he wrote an executive order placing many of his personal papers under restriction for the immediate future. During recent Democratic debates, Hillary Clinton's competition of stuffed shirts blasted her refusal to release her personal correspondence between herself and her husband. Historians despise both measures because they want access to these documents as soon as possible.

Historians may be hurting their own efforts. Our record of the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia was locked up for fifty years so that the participants could speak freely. What if they believed their thoughts would appear in print within a few years? This would alter what was communicated and written down. Future historians will not have those rare finds of politicians actually communicating their real unguarded thoughts. Because Franklin D. Roosevelt did not trust that his papers would remain inviolate, he communicated everything through speaking. We rarely have any idea what was really on his mind at any given point.

Additionally personal papers, especially those between a husband and wife regardless of position, are personal. Hillary Clinton and her husband wrote things to each other on important issues that I personally would be interested in seeing. However these are personal communications and so long as no criminal investigation exists, these papers ought to remain private for the time being. They especially ought not be fodder during a presidential campaign.

George W. Bush's communications come during wartime, something that liberals and the media seem to haver perpetual ammnesia about. They reflect strategies and ideas that could help our enemies if released, even after his term is over. Again, this is a situation where historians want to write their books and political folks want mud to smear.

Bush and Clinton both deserve the right in the short term to limit access to their personal papers so long as there is an eventual date that everything end up in the public eye. It may be years, it may be decades, but that is the price we pay so that these people can feel free to record their thoughts.