It’s become a standard theme: the State Department makes its own foreign policy, whatever the president might desire. And most people think this is something new. It isn’t. Take a look at this fascinating excerpt from Clark Clifford’s memories of his years in Washington. It deals with President Harry Truman’s decision to recognize the State of Israel. The State Department didn’t want to do it, and on at least one occasion took direct action to thwart Truman. He was stunned and depressed, he said that State had made him look like a liar. And we’re talking about sixty years ago.
As Max Weber once said, we are living in the age of bureaucracy, and only the strongest, toughest leaders can make the bureaucrats enforce the leaders’ decisions.
So, either fire them or assign them to some Sisyphusian task, like counting the snowflakes at the North Pole in December or the grains of sand in Saudi Arabia in July.
A disloyal State Department is the sign of a weak president. Please send Mr. Bush–and all future presidents–a copy of Machiavelli.
The State Dept is odious to me. The CIA falls into the same category. Can the President fire these employees at will as mentioned by a Duoist? If so, how about Bush firing the worst of them on his last day in office? Especially if McCain is coming into office. That would give McCain a nice opportunity to shape those depts to not be so leftist.
Clark Clifford’s memory amazes me. To recall the detail of even such a historical event as this is truly remarkable especially after sixty years, with or without notes.
This episode provided an insight into conversations on a number of levels which are usually only guessed and seldom revealed.
This story of the recognition of the State of Israel by the US is new for me. I see here a collision of two points of view: the “Realpolitik” of the State Department and the moral of President Truman. It’s very significant Norman Podhoretz’s comparison between the Truman Doctrine and the Bush Doctrine (World War IV: How it started…) and between the personalities of these two great men. Norman Podhoretz emphasizes above all the moral essence of their doctrines and the absolute amorality of their critics. Israel continues to be one of the painful points of American politics. I know that most Jews vote Democrats, but voting for Obama is like voting for Hamas and the destruction of Israel. It makes me anxious: if this time the Jews will have the common sense to vote for their true friend McCain and not for the disciple of an anti-Semite like Rev. Wright.
Mr. Ledeen
I just wanted to give you a heads-up. This guy Glenn Greenwald over at Salon is absolutely skewering you. He’s basically calling you a hypocrite and a liar. It’s kind of scary as well because he’s a pretty good writer and the way he lays out the facts… well I’m not saying I personally believe him… but I fear an awful lot of people will. Unfortunately he’s pretty convincing. And Salon has a pretty large readership and growing. Anyway I just thought you might want to know what was being said about you.
Thanks!
ML:
It’s a free country, he can say whatever he wishes, and people who are interested to see both sides will do it; those who aren’t will believe what they wish. I figure that if he’s really upset, it can only mean that I am making headway, so I take it as a backhanded compliment.
Michael,
Your quote of Max Weber reminds me of something you said in Freedom Betrayed, along the line that it is only appropriate that America’s leaders be mediocre. Reagans don’t come along every election, nor should they. In a relatively libertarian society, that makes sense.
Under an increasingly intrusive government and expanding bureaucracy, we’ll need more than just a Reagan. We’ll need a congress too with a few sets between them to reign-in State (and the teachers’ unions and the ACLU and the USGBC and and and.)
But hope may be on the way! Why, just look at who McCain and O’Bama have as advisors in Foreign Policy.
It’s time the public was educated about the State dept. Who are these people? Who are its leaders? How are they chosen? Can they be fired? Do they have terms or term limits? Is there a checks and balances system for them?
Well Harry, here is some information.
Most State employees are Foreign Service Officers (about 6,500 of them). They are chosen by FSOs already in service through a series of examinations. The initial one is sort of like the GRE General Exam for graduate school and is not very difficult for someone with a college degree. Later there is a more elaborate personal interview and other sorts of tests. There is also a medical exam to weed out people who might not sustain the health problems in someplace like Lagos. Finally the successful candidate gets in on probation. After a while he becomes a permanent employee. Such people ar Federal bureaucrats, that is they are very hard to get rid of, short of a major blotting of their copybook.
The senior people are mostly promoted from within. Some of the most senior people are political appointees however. The permanent bureaucrats try to pull the wool over their eyes, of course.
The permanent bureaucrats try to maintain what they consider the proper policies, which genrally clash with those the political appointees want to follow, especially in a Republican Administration. The only checks on them are if the political appointees manage to control them, a difficult task.
Anyone who wants an understanding of how a government actually works, “modern government without tears” as you might call it, should read the books or view the TV series for “Yes, Minister” and “Yes, Prime Minister”. A friend of my family who headed a department in the governemnt of a US state told me that the picture there is absolutely accurate about the permanent bureaucracy fighting against their political chiefs, or as one character puts it pitting the political will against the administrative won’t. It sounds screwy, to recommend TV comedies for learning about government, but the series are really enlightening.