The State Department - For the People or the Person?

As we continue reading through the Heritage Foundation’s P2025, we arrive at chapter 6, “The Department of State,” by Kiron K. Skinner. Skinner was part of the Trump administration at the State Department, teaches at Pepperdine University, and is associated with the Hoover Institution and Heritage Foundation. The State Department is a critical part of the US Government, as close to a “Peace Department” as we have to correspond with the “War Department” that we looked at over my last two entries. 

Skinner begins by saying, “The U.S. Department of State’s mission is to bilaterally, multilaterally, and regionally implement the President’s foreign policy priorities; to serve U.S. citizens abroad; and to advance the economic, foreign policy, and national security interests of the United States.” Let’s compare that to the mission statement of the Department of State (https://www.state.gov/about/): “To protect and promote U.S. security, prosperity, and democratic values and shape an international environment in which all Americans can thrive.” To be sure, the State Department’s website does say that the Secretary of State “carries out the President’s foreign policies through the State Department, which includes the Foreign Service, Civil Service, and U.S. Agency for International Development.” So, there is no question that the President is elected and given then power to set policies that the State Department carries out. But there is a world of difference in making the historic mission of the State department the starting point, rather than starting with presidential power. And that is the framework with which I want to discuss Skinner’s essay. 

Skinner notes on p.203 that there is always a tug-of-war between Presidents and bureaucracies within the State Department. She argues that it is more pronounced whenever the President is conservative, because “large swaths of the State Department’s workforce are left-wing and predisposed to disagree with a conservative President’s policy agenda and vision.” That song is becoming almost laughably predictable in this document. Whether Skinner is correct or not, the tension between career diplomats and elected officials should not come as a surprise. Let me illustrate. Say a diplomat has been working for many years with her counterpart from a country with which the U.S. has strained relations. Through connections and experience, she may know that sometimes the leadership of that country will make claims that sound volatile but serve mostly to placate the extreme elements within the country with little real effect. An incoming President would not be expected to know such things and might be inclined to respond in a way that causes more damage than it solves. The career diplomat, then would face a matter of conscience. Using the language of the State Department’s mission, how does one promote the “security, prosperity, and democratic values” of the U.S. when a President’s ill-advised action would harm them? Or, to use Skinner’s own language, how does one “advance the national security interests” of the U.S. when a President’s direction might set them back? And while it is easy for me to imagine someone as impetuous as former President Trump ignoring the wisdom of a career diplomat, it is equally possible for any number of potential presidents. Being a state Governor, a Senator, or a Representative – as most candidates for presidency left and right tend to be – may not equip someone for choosing the path of wisdom. 

That is why the thrust of P2025 is so disconcerting. By repeatedly accusing career civil servants of being “woke,” or “left-wing,” and representing unconstitutional challenges to a President’s will, this document actually predisposes a conservative President to ignore much of the hard-earned wisdom of career diplomats, rather than inviting their voice into the decision-making process. That disposition is clear when Skinner says, “No one in a leadership position on the morning of January 20 should hold that position at the end of the day” (p.205). No one. Not a single person. There is no criteria for evaluating who must go, just everyone who wakes up that morning employed in a leadership position should lie down that night unemployed. Because they committed the atrocious act of working for a previous administration. 

If that is the attitude of a future incoming administration – or if that was the “drain the swamp” attitude of the Trump administration back when Skinner worked for him before – it is no wonder that career servants seem resistant to it. 

Mark of St. Mark

The Department of Defen(ding our political perspective)

 In my last entry, I began looking at the section of the Heritage Foundation’s “Project 2025” on the Department of Defense, by Christopher Miller.  There’s a lot about this chapter that is beyond my scope of knowledge, especially when it comes to the particulars of different types of tanks, nuclear arsenal, and so forth. So, I cannot and will not address any of those topics either positively or negatively. There are, however, some aspects of Miller’s essay worth noting.

First, it seems that all of the essays in P2025 are required to give lip service to dismissing critical race theory along with diversity, equity, and inclusion programs. I know military veterans who take a lot of pride in how the US Army was one of first institutions in America to defy color codes and treat people of different colors equally. Of course it was not a blemish-free process by any means, but the Army did pursue an intentional process of overcoming its own history of racism. I imagine back then they had folks arguing that such a focus was harming their mission also. Sigh.

Likewise, there seems to be a requirement for these essays to decry Marxist ideology and indoctrination everywhere. Miller follows suit. None of this ideology is spelled out, though, so one is left wondering if the kind of Marxism he has in mind would include the base housing and spousal support that he argues is necessary for enlisted personnel. Believe me, I am all for improving base housing and providing services that make it easier for families when someone is stationed to move or deployed and has to go away. I agree with Miller that government-provided childcare and employment assistance seems to be something we are obliged to offer when families make such sacrifices. I just want to point out that those are precisely the kinds of programs that fall under the criticism of being “socialist” when they are suggested for anyone else. So, perhaps some kinds of Marxist ideas or programs might be worth discussing, rather than simply employing the bugaboo term to suggest nefarious forces at work. 

And finally, Miller suggests reinstating service members to active duty who were discharged for not receiving the COVID vaccine. Those service members refused direct orders based on the kind of objective science that Miller argues elsewhere should be required of all military decisions. Medical science is not opinion or indoctrination, just because someone’s political loyalties require them to question it. 

Honest to goodness, I wish Miller had said to the P2025 folks, “I know we’re supposed to let your rank partisanship permeate every bit of this project, but some things are too important to be relegated to your political ends.”  That would have been an act of uncommon courage.

Mark of St. Mark