It seems that those who know the least about journalism are journalists.

I was disappointed to see that Mr. Frey's paper on political isolation didn't address other ways that politicians remove themselves from public criticism. The Bush Administration has given us several examples of such behaviour. From President Bush's noted reluctance to read newspapers, to Vice-President Cheney's refusal to set eyes on a television tuned to a station other than Fox News, to the dissent-quieting methods of the president's advance team, to the use of hand-picked, stovepiped intelligence in crafting policy, the current administration has shown a willingness not just to discount opposing viewpoints and contradictory evidence, but to pretend such things do not exist.

These actions raise interesting economic questions. Why, for instance, would an administration choose to have less information than its political opponents? Familiarising oneself with opposing ideas needn't imply a change in policy; if anything, it might improve one's strategy for achieving desired goals. The administration's failure to equip itself with all available information represents a choice to deliberately handicap its actions.

Useful information is not provided by journalists. Declining to read newspapers or watch television does not deprive one of information about opposing viewpoints or contradictory evidence. That information is readily available from many higher quality sources. I would be very worried if those in leadership positions did rely on newspapers or television for any information. None of them have shown themselves to be competent brokers, much less honest brokers. These are not the best and brightest people, and they are not the good or great either.

Such seemingly irrational behaviour should cause us all to think hard about what exactly goes into the presidential utility function, particularly given the electorate's own information assymetry vis-a-vis the White House's behaviour. We cannot know exactly what the president would like to do, nor can we know exactly what he is doing, so it's vitally important that we have appropriate political mechanisms in place to rein in a position that's subject, as we've clearly seen in recent years, to moral hazard.

It isn't irrational behavior, just the opposite. Which is a vivid example of why elected officials need fixed terms of office that can only be shortened for grave offenses.

Given that the structure of the American government makes it difficult for the American people to ensure that a president's interests are aligned with their own (particularly in a second term), it seems odd that opposition leaders are so reluctant to invoke one of the most powerful tools available to them. Even if actual impeachment and removal of a president is rare, the persistent, credible threat of impeachment would force a president to more closely consider the will of the electorate.

And then we'd have the sort of mess the Europeans have. Bad idea. Very bad idea. The form of American government is far superior. It is far less likely to swing from pillar to post the way European governments have done and still do, so it is less likely to go off the deep end as European governments have done and may do again. Perhaps as importantly, the government is not hostage to fashionable nonsense to the same degree, and the public is not whipped into a frenzy by the continual machinations of politicians. . . at least not as often or to the same degree. Better government would have even less of this, not more.

Impeachment is considered a dangerous and last-ditch option, scorned lest it be used for wanton political opportunism or the satisfaction of political vendettas, but from a corporate governance standpoint, a credible impeachment threat is necessary to help ensure that politicians act in the best interests of the voters. Without it, presidents will be more likely to engage in risky and self-interested behaviour.

Impeachment isn't for threatening political opponents or coercing policies. It is for the orderly removal of officials who have committed grave offenses, who have failed to do their sworn duties. The pursuit of risky and self-interested policies is not affected one way or another. Such proceedings would fail, since they do not meet even minimum standards, and would be a waste of time as well as political capital for those who brought the charges. It is the separation of powers and a constitution with enumerated powers that constrains government. It's a far better way to dampen the enthusiasm for risky business.

I certainly hope that all elected officials everywhere ignore journalists to an even greater extent than in the past since the quality is low and declining. They are useful for a sort of entertainment I suppose, if you enjoy laughing at bumpkins gaping at the sights in new environs, but I feel a little ashamed of picking on the provincials. With time and exposure to more cosmopolitan surrounds they might become less confused and ludicrous. They probably aren't incapable of rational behavior, they just don't know what that means.