The Pen and the Phone
The Pen and the Phone
We are not a functioning representative democracy.
One-twelfth of 2021 is in the books, and the northeast United States is getting its first real bit of winter. Much of the nation/world rightly rolls its eyes at reactions to weather events in this media rich, population dense part of the nation, as it seems never in the history of the country to have been hotter than a summer day in New York, and the snow has never fallen so hard as it does not a winter day in Boston. Ridiculous notions like “wind chill” and “heat index” are thrown around as weather equivalents of grade school achievement bumper stickers so that entitled northeasterners (like me) can claim hardship from rather average weather. And so, it goes.
This twice weekly bit of rambling is off to a good start, with about 150 subscribers so far (which means they get it in their email box on Tue/Fri mornings). Linked as it is in various social media, nearly 800 people read these offerings each time they come out, and I am grateful for every set of eyeballs. Although you probably have not noticed, the comments section has been removed. Few people were using it anyway, although there was a hardy band of networked Trump supporters who could not resist beclowning themselves, ruining it for others.
Where Are We?
A few weeks into the Biden Administration, and hopes for a mature approach to constraining executive power appear dim. We are become a people governed by the pen and the phone, with Executive Orders substituting for a functioning Congress as the means for mediating between the people and its government. This was wrong under Bush, it was wrong under Obama, it was wrong under Trump, and it is wrong under Biden. The Congress has walked away from the business of legislating, desiring instead to punt the hard questions to the courts and the easy ones to the regulatory state while reserving sufficient time for public preening and fan service.
Were the GOP an actual functioning political party rather than a group of hostages, it would be speaking against executive overreach and proposing legislation that would restore the proper relationship between the Executive and the Legislative branches. Unfortunately, it spent the past four years acting not so much as the first branch among equals in our Constitutional system, but as a Greek chorus to a corrupt authoritarian. On the matter of executive overreach, it is simply without credibility.
A friend passed along an article titled “Forcing Out the Fringe” from the Washington Post, a piece that looked at the successful othering of the John Birch Society and other fringe groups by the GOP in the past. His one line note said “It’s been done before.” Putting aside the sound historical fact he pointed to, I found myself thinking he had not quite gotten it right. The GOP was dealing with a “fringe” element then. Its current difficulties spring from the embarrassing fact that the “fringe” is where its political moderates and ideological conservatives (they are different, you know) now can be found, while the great fat middle of the party is dominated by the aggrieved, the racist, the xenophobic, the nativist, the isolationist, and those who quietly support them. You know the type. I’m not a racist, but….I understand. I’m not xenophobic, but….I understand. Sorta like this Chris Rock bit below (between 2:00 and 2:40. Warning—Graphic Language).
On Our New Secretary of Defense
President Biden surprised many in the national security world late last year when he nominated retired U.S. Army General Lloyd Austin to be his Secretary of Defense. A good bit of the ensuing kerfuffle came from the disappointment of those who believed long time Democratic DoD favorite Michele Flournoy would get the job. Flournoy was superbly well-qualified and well-liked by legions of mentees populating think-tanks and academia. Anyone other than Flournoy getting the job was going to alienate some aspect of the left-of-center national security scrum, but Austin’s nomination really stirred up a hornet’s nest—both on the left and the right.
Shortly after World War II and the creation of the Department of Defense, there has been a requirement that any appointee to the position of Secretary of Defense must not have served in uniform within the previous seven years. This requirement is enshrined in public law, there once being a majority in both chambers of our national legislature in favor of it and a President who would sign it. However, twice now in recent memory, “waivers” have been sought to allow retired four-star generals who had not met the seven-year requirement, to serve in the position. President Trump wished to have General Jim Mattis serve, and Biden selected Austin. Neither choice was popular among some observers.
There is in the national security field, a small and influential group of people who study what is called “civil-military relations”. Our proud tradition of civilian control of the military—stemming from the Commander-in-Chief portion of the President’s duties—has given birth to hundreds (if not thousands) of doctoral dissertations and peer-reviewed articles that dissect what for some is the always-ready-to-explode-tension between the generals and the politicians. Many in this group argued against both Mattis and Austin, seeing in them both the seeds of military junta and diminished civilian control.
That there is a law against the service of people of such recent military experience should be a sufficient rationale to disqualify them, as that is how things work in our country. That the law makes little sense, is arbitrary, is discriminatory, and solves a non-existent problem is beside the point. It is the law, and it should be followed. Or, if the Congress believes that now two men in five years are worthy of not following the law, it should be stricken.
The case for overturning the law is a sound one, but not because it has been routinely broken of late. We have no such law prohibiting investment bank or brokerage house executives from serving as the Secretary of the Treasury. A deep background in the law and recent service in the Justice Department are considered essential for Attorney General nominees. Yet for some reason, the fact that someone spent 35 to 40 years practicing and studying the tactical, operational, and strategic levels of war is disqualifying in the resume of someone who would lead U.S. defense efforts. The seven-year stipulation is a red-herring; the civil-military community would still take to their fainting couches if a former general or admiral had sat on the sidelines for the required time.
There are two insidious forces at work among those who argue against recently serving officers being appointed as Secretary of Defense—well really more than two, but two that deserve some scrutiny. Neither is talked about in great specificity in general audiences, but the first is at least acknowledged. And that is, a Defense Department led by someone who has recently served is believed to be a Defense Department that is more likely to (at best) upset the delicate civil-military balance in the United States and (at worst) is more likely to lead a military coup/insurrection. The second—which is never brought up—is a low-level disdain for the military in general, one that leads to the conclusion that the Department is too large, too diverse, and too unwieldy for anyone who has spent their lives in something as prosaic as the profession of arms to lead. Better that DoD be led by an automobile executive, a former Senator, or a former Director of the Office of Management and Budget than a former Service Chief or Combatant Commander.
Should General Mattis have been appointed as SecDef? No. Because the law said so. Was his tenure as Secretary of Defense in any way injurious to the Republic or the balance of civil-military relations in the country? Also no. Any negative impression of his performance in the job seems far more attributable to the fact that his boss was a lunatic, than in how he chose to spend his adult life. Should General Austin have been nominated and confirmed? No. Because the law said so (the fact that so many who voted against the waiver for Mattis voted for a waiver for Austin and vice versa demonstrating the banality of hypocrisy on Capitol Hill). Now that he is confirmed and serving, should we be on pins and needles about civil-military relations? Is the Biden Administration going to be steamrolled by its own Defense Department? Will he be ineffective as a result of his prior service? Also no.