After the flurry of activity yesterday, it’s time to reflect on power and the truth.

Here’s something to ponder: in a representative form of government does anyone have absolute power? The short answer is: no. The first problem is, however, when people in power think that their power is absolute. The second problem is inherent in the concept of power; because power, in and of itself, tends to corrupt.

Hubris is the underlying fault. That is to say: having hubris enables a person’s willingness to believe that he/she can have absolute power. That belief is, of course, foolish. But when has foolishness ever stopped self-deception? Furthermore, it’s imprudent to believe that one has absolute power under any circumstance.

History should inform that we cannot do whatever we want even if we feel that our cause is just. The ends can never justify the means. Pondering this in the cold light of day I could only think of one thing: what were they thinking?!? The obvious answer? Absolutely nothing! They had to know that there are always consequences to every action, good or ill.

A moment’s worth of thought: a mere minute of reflection would have caused their better angels to have been heard to say, “NO!!! Don’t do this!” Yes, it’s true I am assuming that Cheney, Libby, Rove, et al, have better angels. I will admit that I could be wrong on that point. But at some point, on the darkest part of our longest night, we must encounter that mirror of our soul. It’s the mirror that will not allow our lies.

I am thinking back to another era. Another group of supposedly smart folks: I am thinking about the Nixon White House. The folks now occupying the White House (the ‘peoples’ house’) are all old enough to remember the mistakes of that merry band of lawbreakers. Of course it was about more than Watergate (there was the break in at Daniel Ellsberg’s psychiatrist’s office, and all the other pranks that came out Don Segretti’s bag of tricks), but we all seem to focus on Watergate. So, let’s hark back to that particular dark deed for a mo’.

It was a hearing room in the capitol and a young lawyer named, John Dean, was testifying. There was no c-Span, there was no NPR, and there was no cable news. You could only hear it live if you were near an independent radio station that was willing to sacrifice program time to broadcast it. In the west, it was the Pacifica group (yes, we are better informed now, but are we listening?).

Dean was giving a riveting account of nefarious goings on in the Oval office. Folks in California with a memory back to Jerry Vorrhees and Helen Gahagan Douglas knew only too well what Richard Nixon was capable of doing to his opponents. We, after all, had given him the sobriquet, “Tricky Dick.”

But this Dean fellow had such an acute memory. How could anyone have such an incredible memory? Was he to be believed? Then, a witness was called who no one had ever heard of outside of the inner circle: Alexander Butterfield. He was a reluctant witness, as it turned out, but he testified truthfully. He said that there were secret tapes. In the end, these tapes confirmed all of what Dean was testifying to and gave lie to Haldeman, Ehrlichman and the rest. It was over. They all went to jail. Well, almost all. Nixon spent the rest of his life trying to resurrect his image. Why didn’t Nixon destroy the tapes? There has never been a sufficient answer beyond ‘unbridled hubris’: That vain belief that you have the absolute power to control the truth.

Dean had made the mistake of trying to speak truth to power, “There is a cancer on the presidency.” One doesn’t do that. So, as the current 5-count indictment was being handed down, people were opining that if only someone had been willing to speak the truth to power, all of this could have been avoided. Can this be true?

We can all be like Diogenes, going about with our lanterns looking for an honest man. But, even if we find one, will he speak truth to power? Perhaps we need to create a new cabinet level post called, “Devil’s Advocate.” It would be the responsibility of this person to argue the opposite position of any policy proposal made by the administration. Because he/she was the Devil’s Advocate, he/she could argue this position with impunity. But, that wouldn’t have stopped what the president’s men did to Valerie Palme and her husband in 2003. Though it might have stopped the war.

So, we are back to where we started. Hubris comes before the fall. Because, in order to have that hubris; one must have a willing suspension of disbelief in one’s own fallibility. You’ve got start believing that you can do what you want, to whom you want with impunity: you must think that you are a god. But then, you might just fly too close to the sun, Icarus.