Is anyone else beginning to feel seriously creeped out by that expression?
I’m a student of language. I’m entirely familiar with seventeenth- and eighteenth-century rhetorical, ah, pleasantries, and they don’t normally bother me in context.
I somehow doubt, however, that George W. Bush, Tony Snow, Alberto Gonzales, and assorted smirking minions in the White House and the U.S. Department of Justice (the ones who haven’t yet resigned and started seeking immunity deals) are thinking in quite the same context that I am when they recite that phrase over and over again as a defensive mantra that is beginning to sound like open taunting of anyone who still believes that the U.S. of A. is a republic and a democracy.
The context of Enlightenment rhetoric was the reasonable, the standard we still set for our citizen juries because democracy depends so heavily on our trust in one another, our belief that most of us, citizens and elected and appointed officials all, can and will pay attention to facts and principles and laws and play fair in our public dealings with one another.
Without that context and that commitment to truth and democratic principle, “at the pleasure of the president” could mean anything at all. It could mean that George W. Bush could appoint his favourite horse as the next AG should Gonzales be impeached any time soon. Don’t laugh: there’s a precedent.
Me, every time I watch and listen to the smirkers in Washington who wield that line more and more freely these days, clearly believing that it means that no law applies to them, I feel my skin starting to crawl. There is a definite sick subtext emerging from this administration’s defiance of congressional oversight and democratic principle. The press secretary sneers or the president giggles, and I feel – forgive me, but I feel fingered.
And I’m not even an American. Not that that is going to save me or any of us from a regime that is passing very swiftly from imperialist all the way to seriously depraved.
Creeped out? Yes! OMG, Yes! "At the pleasure of..." is a particularly vulgar euphemism for the anti-democratic shenanigans that you've described in your post.
Shades of: "But if the President does it, it's not illegal"
Very retro, eh? Here we are, waiting for 1974 to roll around again.
Yes, and I have been for some time now, and like yourself I am well versed in 17th and 18th Century language and formalisms. At first I just thought of it like Domingo Montoya from the Princess Bride and his exchanges with Vezinni over whether the word meant what he thought it did (inconceivable) but these days it has gone well beyond that after watching my worst fears about the US Justice department unfold over the past half year or so. I had always suspected this was what was really going on in there, that political loyalties to Bushco/GOP was the primary qualification to be considered and not the greater loyalty to the rule of law and the US Constitution to which all government employees from the President on down are supposed to be loyal to, in service to, and following. As much as we have seen so far from the perversions of the US Justice system revealed in the firings of the 8 US Attorneys I fear it is still only the very tip of a very large iceberg.
It is interesting that the root of the term is stolen from the very monarchy the American colonies chose to revolt against. Namely, servants of the Crown served at the pleasure of the Crown.
I don't recall, in my lifetime, ever having heard it used so much as during the past few years. It also carries with it a threat: "You senator, have no authority over me." It harkens back to a potentate selecting his/her court against all objections of the masses.
It's also not true in the case of those members of Bush's cabinet requiring senate confirmation. Those people, including Gonzales, serve at the pleasure of the President and the people. Funny how they seem to have forgotten that.
Domingo and Vezinni...some recognized the power warnings in that. Prob is...do a google and you only get theatre reviews. oh well, brewing discontent never earned immediate acknowledgment! shows how a revolution can be slow.
Somehow or other, I don't think the "founding fathers" meant that the executive could hire and fire his appointees based on their willingness to pervert justice for partisan ends.
Really, "pleasure of the president" might make it all technically not illegal, but they know that what they did was at least highly unsavoury. And Gonzales, the worthless putz, has lied to Congress under oath, and that should be enough for repug hacks 'eh?
Hmmnnn: I've heard of 'contempt of court', can one be charged and convicted of 'contempt of Congress'? (Or 'contempt of Parliament' for that matter?)
macadavy,
Here is the definition and case law cites.
I whooped at macadavy's "contempt of parliament" remark. Ever since P.M. Steve Harper and his Cons started the horrendous TV attack ads demeaning the Leader of Parliament's Official Opposition, I have been trying to come up with better words than "utter disrespect" that the government has for our Parliamentary System. Macadavy hit the nail on the head.
Harper's obvious contempt for the opposition parties is indeed a "contempt of parliament." It's also the only reason why the session has been so rancourous. Especially in a minority, for decorum to return it is essential that the government take the lead and show respect for our system. Harper has to stop his incessant hissy-fits that caustically denigrate the Opposition as traitors of all things, whenever they question the government. Only then will the Opposition Parties reciprocate with even-handed probing and questioning (their job!) of the government's legislation.
Another theory is that this "lack of decorum" in Parliament is a strategy of Harper's to convince Canadians that our Parliamentary System does not work. With his close alliance with the U.S. (from the old days of Reform and Alliance), could he be thinking "Republic?"
An "open" Conservative government it is not! Didn't Harper promise this in the last election??
Yes, I am seriously creeped out by that expression.
I think of "at the pleasure of the Queen" somehow.
Perhaps it's best I drop it there...