THE REAL CRISIS: LOSS OF EXPERIENCE IN THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT

As we enter 2019, there is a long list of problems to concern the neutral observer on the health of American governance.  In my view, almost all the ongoing crises, including trade wars, a prolonged governmental shutdown, uncertainty in foreign policy (that has allies and opponents alike scratching their heads) and even the threat of impeachment can all be traced to one overriding factor.  

There is a pronounced lack of knowledgeable advisors in the White House, in Congress and throughout the federal bureaucracy.  I am speaking of the paucity in today’s White House and federal government of old school political operatives; of foreign policy experts who are well versed in strategic options as well how foreign regimes think and act; and of economists and international experts with experience in negotiating agreements with other countries.

First, consider the Senate and the House of Representatives.  On matters of trade, the use of force, international agreements and even crafting bipartisan legislation on complex technical matters, Congress has gone AWOL. The past practice of members of Congress developing expertise in a certain area of governance in order to advise and challenge the President is no longer the case. It has been reported that new Republican members in the House of Representatives proudly announced their lack of a passport rather than their eagerness to learn and dive deeply into foreign policy. Exasperating the problem, today’s members of Congress seek to be placed on more committees then in the past, giving them little opportunity to gain proficiency in any one area.

The world is a complicated and dangerous place.  When we elect legislators who are partisan ideologues rather than those with the desire to get involved with policy and to govern, a valuable check and balance is lost. Power is ceded to the Presidency by default.  The White House is relied on to provide the expertise necessary to navigate through troubled waters without Congressional input or oversite.

Which brings us to Donald Trump’s two-year-old presidency. In the modern era, Presidents have been pleased that Congress has shirked its responsibilities. For example, shortly after 9/11, Congress passed the Authorization for Use of Military Force to combat terrorism. The AUMF has remained in place and given subsequent presidents the unchecked ability to expand military operations throughout the Middle East. Presidents Bush 43 and Obama gladly assumed the additional responsibility and staffed up the National Security Council with well-versed policy experts to replace what was clearly a congressional duty.  No one seemed to care.

Unfortunately, President Trump, while welcoming the lack of constraint on his actions, has not taken the manpower steps necessary to run an effective presidency. Where Obama hired the best experts he could find to present multiple options and encouraged debate, Trump openly criticizes or terminates those who disagree with him and seeks minimal input.

Now, two years into his presidency, Trump has left himself a skeleton crew of ideologically loyal staffers, with questionable expertise, who are willing to accept his “hunches” as the best way forward. The result has been a basketful of questionable unilateral decisions, made by the President with enormous consequences and no Congressional debate. While the media is reporting on Presidential tweets and the Mueller probe, Trump has walked away from the Trans-Pacific Partnership, the Paris Agreement on Climate Change, and the Iran nuclear deal. His international travels have disrupted relations with our allies while embracing totalitarian regimes around the world.

The same can be said of Trump’s use of White House political operatives.  Their main task should be to protect the President from himself. Even with Trump’s loose cannon tendencies, it is difficult to believe that White House political advisors with the accumulated wisdom of a James Baker (Ronald Reagan) or John Podesta (Clinton, Obama) would have permitted Trump to fire FBI Director James Comey and to make the incriminating comments that lead to appointment of an Independent Counsel.

Lastly, the federal bureaucracy has been severely compromised in its ability to effectively carry out its responsibilities since Trump assumed the presidency.  In 2017, the State Department, lost 60 percent of its career ambassadors and a substantial cut to its budget. After more than 24 months in office, hundreds of key jobs that require Senate confirmation have yet to be filled.  In most cases a candidate has not been chosen by the White House. Thirteen Inspector General positions, charged with rooting out waste fraud and abuse, remain unfilled.  So much for Trump’s pledge to drain the swamp in Washington.

All of the above is a crisis, not simply a talking point.  It is not Trump’s fault that over the past several decades Congress has relinquished powers granted to it under the Constitution.  But he is responsible for firing NJ Governor, Chris Christie, who attempted to put a rational transition plan in place and for refusing to recognize his new responsibilities.

A president who states he “knows more than the Generals”, who refuses to read his daily security brief and who despises expertise is a danger indeed.  In the event of a real national emergency, one not manufactured by President Trump, the challenge may be beyond his ability to cope.