Shortly after taking office, the White House web site promised the President would be "committed to making his administration the most open and transparent in history". A White House spokesman proclaimed, "The president remains committed to bringing more transparency to government" and the President himself promised, "No more secrecy".
Yes, well, that was then, before reality and political expediency introduce themselves to the President. Nowadays, he's locking up secrets even more strictly than his predecessor.
As a senator, Barack Obama denounced the Bush administration for holding "secret energy meetings" with oil executives at the White House. But last week public-interest groups were dismayed when his own administration rejected a Freedom of Information Act request for Secret Service logs showing the identities of coal executives who had visited the White House to discuss Obama's "clean coal" policies. One reason: the disclosure of such records might impinge on privileged "presidential communications."
The administration is learning that simply invoking transparency does not turn everything into puppies and rainbows. There are still difficult legal decisions to be made and some records that wisdom and prudence require not be released to the public.
However prudent this decision might be, it fits into a disturbing pattern of increased and belligerent secrecy from the Obama administration. The current Inspectors General scandal is still developing and Michael Barone has noticed the distinct "Chicago Way" tenor to the President's domestic policies. Could it be that the President fed us all a line during the campaign, or is The New Ledger closer to the target when it says, "Sometimes the things you criticize during a campaign turn out to be different once you win"?
My guess at this point is that the move toward less transparency isn't born of malice but of fear. The President is learning there is a vast gulf between campaigning and governing. The media, once reliably in the tank, have begun to make restless noises of discontent. The Democratic Party's various interest groups came to collect what they were promised and were not pleased to find out that the President promised much more than he could deliver. He's been let down badly by both Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, on whom he relied to deliver a string of victories in Congress. It wasn't like this during the Democratic National Convention, when he stood astride Invesco Field like a colossus.
It's almost enough to make you feel just the tiniest bit sorry for him.
Almost.