“On the sea there is a tradition older even than the traditions of [the United States] itself and wiser in its age than this new custom. It is the tradition that with responsibility goes authority and with them accountability.
“This accountability is not for the intentions but for the deed. The Captain of a ship, like the captain of a state, is given honor and privileges and trust beyond other men. But let him set the wrong course, let him touch ground, let him bring disaster to his ship or to his men, and he must answer for what he has done.
“It is cruel, this accountability of good and well intentioned men. But the choice is that or an end to responsibility and finally, as the cruel sea has taught, an end to the confidence and trust in the men who lead, for men will not long trust leaders who feel themselves beyond accountability for what they do.”
The above three paragraphs come from a 1952 Wall Street Journal editorial that appeared after the tragic collision of the USS Hobson with the USS Wasp, as the country mourned the loss of many American sailors.
In commanding ships, the lines of accountability are clear when the unthinkable happens. In the case of a massive political defeat, like the kind just experienced by the Democrats, the lines of accountability are nowhere near as clear.
In the days to come, pundits and talking heads will serve up all sorts of explanations as to why the Democrats lost so much ground in Congress. The presiding TV anchors and program hosts will receive all these explanations politely or, in case of something really off-the-wall, with slightly-arched eyebrows at most. Almost all theories for the Democratic wipeout will be treated equally.
As well, the President and his spokespeople will offer their own detailed explanations. Those explanations, even if some of them rely on smearing many of the victorious Republicans as paranoid yahoos and closet racists, will probably be received politely by and dutifully reported by the MSM.
For the rest of us to hope that reporters will patiently nag the White House to offer a spin-free comment on the repudiation of the Congressional Democrats will seem cruel – like rubbing salt on a wound. But it is still necessary, if for no other reason than to allow the President and his team to preserve some shred of dignity by taking some political responsibility for what has happened.
Should the White House retreat behind some lame rationalization for the Democrats’ defeat, it will feed the already widespread perception that its current occupants “feel themselves beyond accountability for what they do,” as the 1952 WSJ editorial put it.
One consequence of that will be a further erosion in “the confidence and trust in the men who lead.”
Can a President burdened with a 42% disapproval rating risk that?
