In a weekend Wall Street Journal article (subscription only, alas) dealing with Scooter Libby’s classified information disclosures to the press, an administration critic, one Steven Aftergood of the Federation of American Scientists is quoted. His choice of words is, probably unwittingly, very revealing:
The implication from the disclosure that Mr. Libby had authority to discuss intelligence matters with the press “is that the White House – the vice president – has been using his declassification authority as a way to advance the administration’s political agenda,” said Mr. Aftergood. “In other words, information that supports the administration’s position on Iraq or whatever is selectively declassified and other information is not. That’s not a criminal offense, but it’s kind of sleazy.” (Emphasis mine)
This issue caused quite a stir in some quarters of the blogosphere the other day, before everyone came to their senses – or as close to their senses as a perpetually aggrieved sense of victimized dyspepsia would permit them to approach – and realized that the executive branch can declassify pretty much whatever they want: According to Aftergood (again from the WSJ), “The classification system is rooted for the most part not in statute but in executive order… In the case of the NIE (National Intelligence Estimate) the White House was free to declassify it at a moment’s notice.”
But what really piqued my interest was Aftergood’s choice of words, in the text above, the highlighted choice of the word “political” versus “policy.” Although rooted in the same word, they mean very different things.
According to Merriam-Webster’s online dictionary, policy is:
1 a : prudence or wisdom in the management of affairs b : management or procedure based primarily on material interest
2 a : a definite course or method of action selected from among alternatives and in light of given conditions to guide and determine present and future decisions b : a high-level overall plan embracing the general goals and acceptable procedures especially of a governmental body
While the referent descriptions of political are:
1 a : of or relating to government, a government, or the conduct of government b : of, relating to, or concerned with the making as distinguished from the administration of governmental policy
2 : of, relating to, involving, or involved in politics and especially party politics
3 : organized in governmental terms political units
4 : involving or charged or concerned with acts against a government or a political system political prisoners>
The coupling of the freighted word “agenda” with “political” in the first quotation above makes it clear to me that Aftergood is using definition 2, above – the idea of an internal competition between competing partisan interest groups.
It is a strange and revealing choice of words that I think reflects a strangely revealing point of view: We used to think – especially in wartime – that national politics, the grimy domestic ins and outs of getting and maintaining power, stopped at the water’s edge. We used to think that once the boys had stepped over the line of departure national policy was, well – national. But for far too many war critics – including many of those who voted in support of the war during the 2002-2003 run-up – this has become a much more political fight for survival and preeminence than a policy issue. For those who found their earlier positions politically burdensome in the war’s messy aftermath, especially when dealing with an hyperagitated, even insensate base, the war has become much less about the thing in itself than how useful it can be to one or another party.
In this category I do not exclude those of the war’s proponents who seek to paint every election as a national referendum on security. For my own part, I decline to be frightened to the ballot box. No one really believes that Democratic Senators or Representatives are for terror attacks, and we should be able to argue counter-terrorism and national security as issues of debatable national policy, not personal or partisan politics. The issue is not of ends, which everyone agrees upon but means – how best to protect ourselves and project our values.
When partisans choose to frame issues in such a way that they suit personal politics more than national policy, they run a number or risks. Not least of these is having others choose that moment to question their patriotism.
Update: Sigh. Now that’s what I’m on about, politics at the water’s edge?
JIDDAH, Saudi Arabia – Former Vice President Al Gore told a mainly Saudi audience on Sunday that the U.S. government committed “terrible abuses” against Arabs after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, and that most Americans did not support such treatment.
What on earth can he have been thinking? What constituency is satisfied here?
Good post, Lex. Personally I don’t have as negative a reaction to the term “political” as the public dialogue suggests I should. In certain contexts, “political” is not good — as applied to judges, for instance. But it is utterly nonsensical to criticize the political branches for being political. I say this not out of cynical resignation, but because I genuinely believe that this is the appropriate thing. Human affairs are complicated, and the leaders who would influence them must adopt some kind of theory, vision, or other cognitive filter for evaluating symptoms and making decisions. These things manifest themselves as “political views.” I may agree or disagree with one view or another, but it would be silly for me to criticize an elected official in a political branch for adhering to his/her “political agenda.”
I’ll go even further and say that even the pursuit of partisan politics can be to a large extent a good thing, as it is through this mechanism that the struggle over competing political views is decided. Naturally, we have a problem when elected officials start to pursue their domestic partisan interests at the expense of the national interest, but even on this point I hesitate to place too much weight. I choose to believe that in most cases, most elected officials are unable to tell the difference between their own partisan views and what’s best for the country (although they’re very certain that the other guy’s partisan views are the worst possible thing for the country). In that sense, they are honest partisans. I choose to believe this because there’s really very little that can be done to eradicate cynicism in the human heart, and any event, an honest partisan can be just as wrongheaded as a cynical one. In the end we’re all responsible for advancing our own “political agendas” at the ballot box.
Finally, your post reminded me of a lunch conversation I had with a colleague on Friday, regarding Mr. Pillar’s allegations of the White House “cherry-picking intelligence.” Now, I think the world of the Intelligence Community as an institution; by and large, these people work at a critical and thankless job that may in fact also be impossible, knowing that they’ll get all of the blame and none of the credit. But here I think that some in the community are getting out of their lane, and forgetting that for all of their talent and specialized expertise, they are merely advisors. The policymakers for whom they work are entitled to “cherry-pick” intelligence in their discretion, as it is the exercise of that discretion for which they have been elected into office. They are in turn accountable to the people in the next election if they have been derelict in their duties (and the question there is solely one of leadership competence, not of the propriety of “cherry-picking intelligence”). But a professional intelligence officer does not have some kind of actionable grievance because his commander has chosen to trust his own judgment over that of his intelligence advisor.
This would be true even if the delivered intelligence product was less supportive of the commander’s conclusions than was the case with the Iraq NIE. In any event, the Iraq issue will eventually fade into history. But the more general question of the executive’s “obligations” to a professional bureaucracy is one that will have consequences for the future. Although the analogy is inexact, “unity of command” is a principle that still has some applicability to the executive branch.
“It is a strange and revealing choice of words that I think reflects a strangely revealing point of view: We used to think – especially in wartime – that national politics, the grimy domestic ins and outs of getting and maintaining power, stopped at the water?
“It is a strange and revealing choice of words that I think reflects a strangely revealing point of view: We used to think – especially in wartime – that national politics, the grimy domestic ins and outs of getting and maintaining power, stopped at the water’s edge. We used to think that once the boys had stepped over the line of departure national policy was, well – national. But for far too many war critics – including many of those who voted in support of the war during the 2002-2003 run-up this has become a much more political fight for survival and preeminence than a policy issue.”
Those whose lives revolve around single issues [pick one, any one] tend to deeply resent any outside event that shows the relative unimportance of their pet cause. Unable to prevent or stop the unwanted event themselves, they project all their vengeful disappointment on the individual or Administration who can now no longer ignore, or delay dealing with, that unwanted event. Damned if you do and damned if you don’t, but doubly damned if you take any attention or resources away from their personal agenda.
In the echo chamber of these competing partisan interest groups, patriotism has no personal meaning because almost nobody they know personally is at risk.
Actually defending the nation [and the human cost that must be paid]is always somebody else’s job, a irksome detail unworthy of their attention. So when our troops are actually committed and real consequences follow, the need to be serious about winning doesn’t register in their worldview. To them the military is just a TV sports team, to be cheered or jeered as your mood suits. Indifference best describes their attitude.
So victory doesn’t really matter, as long as any inevitable stumble on the road to that eventual victory can be used against their political opponents now.
Because these folks sincerely don’t believe/understand/accept that we really are a nation at war, and the hard choices that implies. No matter what Administration is in power.
The domestic political arena is the only fight the partisans want to focus on. Framed around the pet issues they have invested so much in and love so dearly.
Different sets of rules for different sets of folks. Personally, I take my covenant seriously but I guess they don’t have to. Is that what I’m hearing?
Where is that documented- in law? Methinks not. Just reinforces the fact that to most civilians “honor” is just a word referring back to some Victorian era ideal and secrets are just a game to be played…..
Yes, I’m still wondering what Sandy Berger was trying to spirit out of the Archives- in his friggin socks…..
re- algore. Let’s give that Saudi audience some credit. Everyone listening to it was either just feeding on Gore’s lies for their own benefit or they were just thinking one thing :
“SoreLoserMan”
B2
badbob Says:
February 13th, 2006 at 9:05 am
Different sets of rules for different sets of folks. Personally, I take my covenant seriously but I guess they don?
badbob Says:
February 13th, 2006 at 9:05 am
Different sets of rules for different sets of folks. Personally, I take my covenant seriously but I guess they don’t have to. Is that what I’m hearing?
Where is that documented- in law? Methinks not. Just reinforces the fact that to most civilians “honor” is just a word referring back to some Victorian era ideal and secrets are just a game to be played…..”
Yes, I think this is the core of the issue. Many of the well-intentioned but feckless dhimmis who want to ‘surrender now and avoid working up a sweat’ have never made a real sacrifice in their lives. Or were never taught the price that others before them paid so they could enjoy their unprecedented individual freedoms. Evil Amerikka and all.
Perhaps it is even cruder: they simply don’t know any honorable people, so they can’t even begin to imagine the obligations an honorable person might willingly take upon themselves. Leaving the military aside for the moment, ask these folks what they think about cops, firefighters, EMTs or any service worker who risks hardship or injury–if you get a blank stare and a shrug, that’s a clue…
Its an entitlement mindset–”I’m elite and progressive, therefore the mundane obligations of citizenship and national allegiance don’t apply to me. The world owes me fawning attention, but I have no corresponding responsibiity for my actions. Duty is for chumps..”
If the Best & the Brightest are too good for the messy work of the world, it will still get done. Just not by them. This country has always had a tradition of honorable public service, both military and civilian. And fortunately, there is no shortage of honorable men and women who will ‘bear any burden’ to keep us free.
The danger is that a sense of honor risks becoming the exclusive domain of warriors alone, and not the shared responsibility of all citizens. That’s Praetorianism, and the road to tyranny.
How ironic that when we need all the best ideas and enthusisastic loyalty we can find, the cultural elite and their formidable talents sneer and turn away.
Geez, guess we’ll just have to muddle through without their help.