Brrr

Repressive regimes often use "minders" to escort foreign reporters when they are allowed into the country. This allows them to pretend to be allowing free reporting, while actually shaping the coverage. Even when the minders don't actually control where the reporter goes, and who the reporter speaks to, the mere presence of the minder is a signal to the populace that the government is watching. Subjects who know what's good for them avoid talking to the reporter, or only mimic the government line, no matter how absurd.

Which is why good reporters work hard to find ways to give their minders "the slip," and grab a few private moments with the populace. Which is how we have heard stories from pre-invasion Iraq, or North Korea, or the Soviet Union.

But these "slip away from the minder" skills are usually developed by foreign correspondents. Who knew that we'd need to start developing them in Style reporters covering inaugural balls in our nation's capital?

I had arrived early to get a head start on mingling among the roughly 6,000 people eating and dancing to celebrate the president's reelection. Unaware of the new escort policy (it wasn't in place during the official parties following the 2001 inauguration), I blithely assumed that in the world's freest nation, I was free to walk around at will and ask the happy partygoers such national security-jeopardizing questions as, "Are you having a good time?"

Big mistake. After cruising by the media pen -- a sectioned-off area apparently designed for corralling journalists -- a sharp-eyed volunteer spotted my media badge. "You're not supposed to go out there without an escort," she said.

I replied that I had been doing just fine without one, and walked over to a quiet corner of the hall to phone in some anecdotes to The Post's Style desk.

As I was dictating from my notes, something flashed across my face and neatly snatched my cell phone from of my hand. I looked up to confront a middle-aged woman, her face afire with rage. "You ignored the rules, and I'm throwing you out!" she barked, snapping my phone shut. "You told that girl you didn't need an escort. That's a lie! You're out of here!"

With the First Amendment on the line, my natural wit did not fail me. "Huh?" I answered.

Recovering quickly, I explained that I had been unaware of the escort policy. She was unbending and ordered a couple of security guards to hustle me out. I appealed to them, saying that I was more than happy to follow whatever ground rules had been laid down. They shrugged, and deposited me back in the media pen.

There I was assigned a pair of attractive young women, who, for the next hour or so, took turns following close at my heels. I thought about trying to ditch them in the increasingly crowded hall, just for the sport of it, but realized it was pointless. They never interfered with my work. I found I was able to go wherever I wanted, and to talk to whomever I desired. The minders just hovered nearby, saying nothing. They were polite but disciplined, refusing even to disclose their full names or details about themselves.

For a group of people that keep talking big about freedom and democracy, there certainly seems to be a widespread distrust of "the common man," doesn't there? First they restrict admittance at campaign rallies to those willing to sign loyalty oaths, now they're assigning minders at the inaugural balls? Like it would harm the Republic if one of the rich Republicans was somehow disloyal enough to be willing to criticize the decorations? Or worse, the hors d'oeuvres? It's not like the people allowed into the ball were Democrats or something.

The idea that they were trying to keep an eye on this reporter doesn't make sense - even if some party-goer momentarily forgot the political bias that got them to the event, what would it matter, really? No, I think the real point of the minders was, as it is in every totalitarian regime, to make sure the people know that the government is always watching. It's not even worth thinking a disloyal thought, because you'll never be safe expressing it. Even the polite, attractive young women are watchers.

Sure, so what? It was an inaugural ball. Even the reporter acknowledges it seems like a small thing to make a fuss about. But it's not the specific instance that matters, it's the attitude behind it.

What was so important about the rules that justified the woman yanking a cell phone out of the reporter's hand, and tossing him out of the event? It concerns me when fierce loyalty to bureaucratic procedure trumps loyalty to the rules of etiquette and respect for others. Who created the "escort" policy, and why didn't it make their skin crawl? Who said, "Y'know, we'd better make sure those reporters have someone keeping an eye on them at all times?" Did they use the word "security" to justify it?

The Bush crowd seems to have elevated "rule following" to a main virtue, while ceding the role of "rule making" to others who cannot be questioned.

Sometimes tyranny is instituted in a bloody revolution. Sometimes, it just creeps in slowly, in baby steps.