Some like doing with it the lights off. Maybe they're ashamed of the filthy, naughty things they're doing behind closed doors, online or over the phone. Maybe they're so unattractive (inside and out) that the only way they can bring themselves to do it is under cover of darkness. Who knows: The point is, they like doing it in the dark. It turns them on.
Me, I like it with the lights on. Maybe it's because I'm a voyeur (I don't do it, but like to watch others do it) and so I need lots of light. I like to see exactly what's being done and who's doing it. Unlike them, I get off on sunlight and accountability.
I'm talking, of course, about government. See you on the flip side.
Richard Cohen, to use a random example, likes doing it in the dark:
With the sentencing of I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Fitzgerald has apparently finished his work, which was, not to put too fine a point on it, to make a mountain out of a molehill. At the urging of the liberal press (especially the New York Times), he was appointed to look into a run-of-the-mill leak and wound up prosecuting not the leaker -- Richard Armitage of the State Department -- but Libby, convicted in the end of lying. This is not an entirely trivial matter since government officials should not lie to grand juries, but neither should they be called to account for practicing the dark art of politics. As with sex or real estate, it is often best to keep the lights off.
Right off the bat, Richard "Lights Off" Cohen's error should be obvious. The Libby case wasn't about "politics" (although I'm sure that's what it was about for the Cheney White House-within-a-White House); it was about "government." And governing is something that should be done as openly and drenched in as much sunshine as possible. The Libby case was about the lack of truthfulness of the Bush administration's case for going to war in Iraq, and about their efforts to destroy anyone who brought forth credible evidence that undermined their claims. This is the sort of steamy-hot government action that all of us should get to watch. Sadly, "Lights Off" Cohen thinks only the Beltway insider crowd should get to have all the fun. Behind closed doors. With the lights off.
That was part of the beauty of the Libby trial: We got at glimpse at the inner workings of the White House. Sure, it was on a crapy prosumer handicam, with grainy footage, that creepy greenish tint, bad sound and terrible focus, but hey, it's something! Until the end of the Bush regime, it may be the closest we get.
But if it were up to "Lights Off" Cohen, we wouldn't even get that. The incestuous relationships between government officials and Beltway pundits would continue behind closed doors. Only the worthy would be allowed into the inner sanctum of their perverted little club after being issued (one would assume) special condoms to protect them from an infection of morality.
Glenn Greenwald, as usual, said it best:
That really is the central belief of our Beltway press, captured so brilliantly by Cohen in this perfect nutshell. When it comes to the behavior of our highest and most powerful government officials, our Beltway media preaches, "it is often best to keep the lights off." If that isn't the perfect motto for our bold, intrepid, hard-nosed political press, then nothing is.
We have our marching orders, then: to turn the lights on so the country can see what Cohen and his buddies are up to--all the time.