Meese Doesn’t Meet Test of His Office : It Must Be a ‘Neutral Zone,’ in Deed and Appearance

Increasingly there are demands that Atty. Gen. Edwin Meese III should step down, but the focus on his possible indictment on criminal charges is misplaced. The question that should determine his continued tenure is this: Does he understand the higher standard to which the attorney general must be held--and how does he measure against that standard?

It is a mistake to read the departures of Deputy Atty. Gen. Arnold Burns and Assistant Atty. Gen. William Weld, along with seven of their top aides, as simply an attack on the personal integrity of the attorney general, who is laboring under a cloud of ongoing criminal investigations. Rather, these resignations express a broader concern--maintaining respect for the Justice Department itself.

Independent counsel James McKay has acted responsibly in announcing that while his investigation is continuing, the evidence presently available to his grand jury does not justify a criminal indictment of Meese. Reagan Administration spokesmen have sought to treat that announcement as an endorsement for Meese to retain his office. But among lawmakers and legal experts, this will simply inflame the widespread and long-simmering frustration with the Administration’s misunderstanding of the role of the attorney general, a misunderstanding that threatens to lead the entire department back to the mistrust and suspicion of the Watergate era.

In response to Watergate, two successive attorneys general--one Republican and one Democrat--made great efforts to restore public confidence in the department. Edward Levi, a distinguished legal scholar and law school dean, was chosen by President Gerald R. Ford as a model of integrity and nonpartisan professionalism. As attorney general, he initiated the painstaking development of guidelines to prevent abuses of the government’s broad national security powers.

In turn, President Jimmy Carter appointed Griffin Bell, an eminent former federal appeals court judge. He continued the guideline work of Levi and established further principles for the department to prevent a return to what he termed the “broad appearance of improper influence.”

Bell insisted that the Justice Department should be a “ ‘neutral zone’ in which neither favor, nor pressure, nor politics is not permitted to influence the administration of the law.” He held its officers and employees to a standard of propriety far higher than the mere absence of formal conflicts of interest or violations of law because, in his view, “the Department of Justice is the acknowledged guardian and keeper of the law.”

Bell also established an unprecedented set of rules to insulate the Justice Department from inappropriate political influences and to increase public scrutiny of the department’s activities. He exempted no one--setting a personal example by posting his own telephone log for daily inspection by the media.

Under such an approach, it is inappropriate for the attorney general to act as a political adviser to the President. Robert Kennedy and John Mitchell may have exemplified a time-honored role model--the highly political attorney general--but the liabilities of that model were sadly taught by Watergate. To provide an effective legal brake upon the political impulses of others in the executive branch, the attorney general must be detached from the White House and must be wholly above reproach in his personal integrity.

Meese has aptly cited the danger of ousting Cabinet officials from office by mere accusations and innuendo. However, his argument obscures the other equally important principles of the “neutral zone” vision of the Justice Department developed by his predecessors.

Coming from his White House role as a political counselor, Meese seems to see the office of attorney general as merely another outpost from which to carry out the President’s political agenda. He has thus continued to serve President Reagan as a loyal lieutenant and as a tireless spokesman for the conservative wing of the Republican Party.

But in the process he has subverted the office of the attorney general and tarnished public respect for the Justice Department. Indeed, Meese’s apparent insensitivity to the symbolic role of the attorney general can be gauged by his reported intention to remain in office even if he is indicted.

Meese’s future as attorney general is thus not a partisan concern, but rather an issue of the nation’s confidence in his office and the entire department that he heads. Levi and Bell rebuilt that confidence and Burns and Weld acted to preserve it. It remains to be seen whether the President and Meese can yet appreciate the concept of the Justice Department as a “neutral zone” and the unique dimensions of the office of attorney general.