Utahns constitute less than 1 percent of the national population, but what we lack in numbers, we make up for with controversy.
Events over the past few weeks have pushed several Utahns to the forefront of political rumblings-one because of his obedience to the Bush administration and the other because of his “subversion.”
The first event I’m talking about is the scandal surrounding the firing of eight U.S. attorneys and the Utahn who coordinated the plan. Let me recap.
The Department of Justice employs 93 regional U.S. attorneys who are responsible for prosecuting and defending federal interests in their respective geographical areas. These attorneys serve at the pleasure of the president and are generally replaced in their entirety at the beginning of each new administration. However, near the end of 2006 the Justice Department decided to remove several of them “piecemeal.” Initially, the DOJ cited “poor performance” as rationale, but-and this is where the controversy begins-e-mails later surfaced showing ulterior motives.
Chief among these were “problems” that some attorneys weren’t prosecuting enough Democrats. For example, the U.S. attorney from San Diego had already given the administration a black eye when she convicted Republican Representative Duke Cunningham of fraud. And when the DOJ found out she was expanding her investigation to other Republicans, they grew leery. Apparently they thought she should have been prosecuting undocumented immigrants instead. As critics have pointed out, there wasn’t necessarily a problem with the firings, but doing it for shady reasons and then lying about it is a different story.
Enter Kyle Sampson, Cedar City native and BYU alumnus who was chief of staff to DOJ Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez. A flood of e-mails released by the DOJ has shown Sampson spearheading this effort.
Sampson, who has since resigned, has been painted as the “fall guy” who was really doing the bidding of his master. Earl Fry, a professor familiar with Sampson, told BYU NewsNet, “He’s a good soldier who has fallen on his sword in order to protect his boss” (“BYU Alumni Sampson Resigns in Controversy,” March 18). That may be true, but obedience to a supervisor doesn’t justify underhanded actions, even if it’s done it on the behalf of someone else. Still, not all the details are clear, and Sampson has agreed to testify before Congress in order to shed some light on this issue.
The second event involves Salt Lake City Mayor Rocky Anderson. His presence and keynote addresses at anti-Bush rallies has raised the angst of prominent conservatives and Utah residents.
Anderson recently appeared on the “O’Reilly Factor” to spar over his call for President Bush’s impeachment. Echoing a sentiment that many Bush supporters share, O’Reilly told the mayor he was “subverting (his) own country” and called him a “kook.” Now, the mayor is gearing up for a potential debate with conservative talk show host Sean Hannity (possibly at the U).
Both Sampson and Anderson have put Utahns in the national spotlight, but for very different reasons. Whereas Sampson has been characterized as an obedient “soldier,” Anderson is often labeled as a “subversive” irritant. And of course, another key difference is that one graduated from the Y, while the other came from the U.
What, if anything, do these contrasting extremes say about Utahns? Are we split between obedience mongers and subversive critics? In my opinion, both of these elements are vital to our society. However, what’s more important is that our decision to be obedient or subversive (or varying degrees of both) is based upon critically formed views and not a disingenuous regurgitation of rhetoric.
Matt Homer