Many have commmented on Sara Taylor’s alas, no longer remarkable views on oath-taking, but nobody, so far as I know, has called it out for what it is. Here’s the transcript of Leahy and Taylor’s exchange via Big Orange:

LEAHY: And then you said, I took an oath to the President, and I take that oath very seriously. Did you mean, perhaps, you took an oath to the Constitution?

TAYLOR: Uh, I, uh, yes, you’re correct, I took an oath to the Constitution. Uh, but, what—

LEAHY: Did you take a second oath to the President?

TAYLOR: I did not. I—

LEAHY: So the answer was incorrect.

TAYLOR: The answer was incorrect.

LEAHY: No, the oath says that you take an oath to uphold and protect the Constitution of the United States. That is your paramount duty. I know that the President refers to the government being his government — it’s not. It’s the government of the people of America. Your oath is not to uphold the President, nor is mine to uphold the Senate. My oath, like your oath, is to uphold the Constitution.

The idea that a civil servant takes an oath to the Leader has a name, and a history:

It’s called fuhrerprinzip. Our hair has been on fire about this for quite some time:

In the words of Dear Leader:

“[BUSH] I’m the decider and I decide what’s best.”

And for people unclear on the concept, here’s the definition:

The ideology of Fuhrerprinzip sees each organization as a hierarchy of leaders, where every leader (Fuhrer, in German) has absolute responsibility in his own area, demands absolute obedience from those below him and answers only to his superiors. The supreme leader, Adolf Hitler, answered to no one.

And the results are very familiar:

the selection of unsuitable candidates often led to micromanagement and commonly to an inability to formulate coherent policy. Albert Speer noted that many Nazi officials dreaded making decisions in Hitler’s absence. Rules tended to become verbal rather than written; leaders with initiative who flouted regulations and carved out their own spheres of influence might receive praise and promotion rather than censure.

Eh?

(2006-04)

That’s our problem with the Republicans and the movement conservatives and the VRWC (all of which are a single, though tentacular, entity, despite the flailing attempts of the conservatives to rescue their brand from the Clusterfuck of the criminal Bush regime).

They’re authoritarians, they crave a supreme leader, and they believe that Bush is that leader.

The deference, the “consensus decision making” which is really just a euphemism for working toward the Fuhrer, the belief that “when the President does that means it is not illegal” (and today’s refubished variant, “pleasure of the President”) and the abuse of power both in the erotic, inner life and as torture:

All of these evils can be traced to the authoritarian mindset of the class that rules us from Versailles on the Potomac.

Fuhrerprinzip.

I don’t plan to get used to it any time soon. How about you?

NOTE Good questioning by Leahy. In some ways, revealing Republicans for the authoritatians they are is just as important as the details of their many criminal conspiracies.

NOTE It’s not clear that our home-grown fascists are ever going to be able to undrink the KoolAid:

At a watermelon festival in Chickamauga, in the mountains of northwest Georgia, substitute teacher Clydeen Tomanio said she remains committed to the party she’s called home for 43 years.

“There are some people, and I’m one of them, that believe George Bush was placed where he is by the Lord,” Tomanio said. “I don’t care how he governs, I will support him. I’m a Republican through and through.”

Yep.

And it would be interesting to know how far fuhrerprinzip has infected the military. The German Army lost whatever honor it had after the Hitler regime changed their oath from allegiance to the State to allegiance to his person.

The post-Bush Truth and Reconciliation Commission is going to have its work cut out for it in after 2008. As will the deprogrammers. Assuming, of course, that we don’t have “continuity of government” issues that would prevent a Democrat from taking office, if elected.

UPDATE Of course, the courtiers at WaPo write a personality piece on our Sara. They even get the money quote. They just don’t know they have it, and bury it in the very last paragraph:

“[TAYLOR] It’s a very difficult position to be in,” she said. “The president has exerted executive privilege and I have great respect for the president. The problem for you as an individual is that this comes at a huge personal cost financially.

“But this is a bigger issue than me. I understand the president is doing what he believes is right.”

Like I said: Fuhrerprinzip. For Sara, the only issue is that Bush believes he’s doing the right thing. Well, I should hope so! Whether what Bush is doing is legal, or Constitutional? Not on Our Sara’s radar.

Any insurance experts out there? Another paragraph in the WaPo story reads:

Last year Taylor signed up for professional liability insurance after noting comments made by some Democrats on the 2006 campaign trail about wanting to investigate the White House.

But now she’s on several hooks. This week she found out the insurance will not cover her legal costs.

Why would that be? Maybe because insurance doesn’t cover the commission of illegal acts? Of course, the WaPo stenographer never follows up. Just getting some quotes is enough for these guys.

Versailles stank, as I have noted. And the reason it stank is that courtiers kept pissing on the rugs. This article is a fine example of that.