The Good Spy

I had never heard of Robert Ames until I received this book as a Christmas present. Yet in The Good Spy: The Life and Death of Robert Ames, Kai Bird tells the remarkable story of a remarkable man, made all the more so by his down-to-earth ordinariness.

Bob Ames joined the Army in 1956 after graduating from college. Four years later he was recruited by the CIA, where he worked until he was killed in the Beirut embassy bombing on April 18, 1983. His specialty was the Middle East. Put another way, Ames joined the CIA when Eisenhower was president and served the Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, and Reagan administrations. And in The Good Spy, Bird elegantly captures the complexities of this highly turbulent area, and our foreign policy, in an understandable fashion.

In a moment of realization that the world is smaller than we think, Bob Ames was killed in Beirut, the same city where Kim Philby was confronted. In an even weirder twist, Bob owned a trunk that had formerly belonged to Kim's father. Yes, the world of espionage is small, and even people who belong to different eras are connected.

What Ames excelled at, and what made him such an effective spy, was his ability to make friends and understand people and cultures. Contrary to the image of the spy as a quasi-military agent, Ames used his espionage and intelligence work to promote and further peace. His detailed intelligence work, and ability to create back-channel communications to people that the US government could not publicly admit it was talking to, helped to diffuse or contain situations before they escalated to military engagements.

Peace in the Middle East may be elusive, but so far, at least for the United States, Israel/Palestine has not become another Vietnam due in part to the work of Ames and people like him. It's easy to look at conflict zones and wish they were better; more difficult, yet just as important, is realizing that they could be much worse. The Good Spy demonstrates how certain ordinary people, often acting invisibly, can bring a sense of calm to tumultuous times. Robert Ames was such a person, and his murder in 1983 was a blow to both our foreign policy and peace.

Click here for more book reviews.

Did Republicans Lose the Culture War?

Several months ago the Politico published an article called: How Republicans Lost the Culture War. I have been thinking about it and although I think the author is very right that the “Culture War” is a loss and has been doomed for at least 5 years, I do, however, think he overstates his case. I know my thoughts might be controversial, and I would be happy to dialogue in the comments, just keep it civil. 

So here are my thoughts on the "Culture War" and what the future looks like from here: 

For the last three or so decades many in the Republican base have been motivated by what has been called the "Culture War." They have trained foot soldiers to engage the enemy, they have mobilized voters on key issues, and they have rallied their troops time and time again to "defeat evil." But despite all that, the culture war has been lost. Politico is just one example of a post-mortem of the war. Long standing warriors have told me that they are tired of it; millennials are refusing to fight; and we are constantly being told that history is against us.

But there is more to it than that.

The loss of the “culture war” doesn’t equal loss on issues like abortion. The pro-life position, even with the culture war faux pas, is gaining ground. Legislators and political activists are fumbling the ball, but the hearts and minds are moving our way.

Republicans are desperately trying to figure out birth control because Santorum walked it out in front of people and believes it is all wrong and Romney didn’t know what to say because he is a bit of a squish on the topic, but that doesn’t mean the GOP is going to lose on the issue of making everyone pay for abortions.

The Politico author appeals to the “march of history” to show that the GOP is doomed on social issues. The fact is that only works if you accept the progressive approach to history where everything is marching slowly toward their socialist utopia. But they don’t know history. The fact is that slavery, racism, acceptance of various sexual practices, and even abortion have come in and out of style (and law) over the centuries. Just because a “culture war” is lost, doesn’t mean that political choices are set in stone.

The reason I believe the “culture war” is lost is not because of unartful politics, it is lost because the “foot soldiers” think it is stupid. Most rank and file conservatives (especially conservative Christians) think that politics is the wrong way to change hearts and minds. Many, like me, reject the idea that they are supposed to be soldiers in a “culture war” and would rather focus on helping real, purhaps lost, people.

Young people today are more likely to want to volunteer at a pregnancy resource center than protest at an abortion clinic. Young people are more likely to try to show the unconditional love of Jesus with gay friends than try to outlaw their lifestyle. Young people have told me that they don’t want to be bullets in a “culture war.” They would rather lose the “war” than lose sight of their real goals, caring for people and sharing unconditional love.

In the end, the “culture war” is a failed project, but not because it was defeated politically, but because it was abandoned by those expected to fight it. Those who still are trying to keep it alive are out of touch.

Does the loss of the "culture war" mean that Christians, conservatives, and Republicans (three groups that I associate myself with), are giving up on making a difference in the culture? No, it just means that the culture isn't a battleground, it is a place where we must be salt and light, where truth must be spoken in love, and where hurting people are desperately in need of hope.

How do we translate this new phenomenon into a new political world? How do we end abortion in America and save lives? Conservative stalwart Morton Blackwell has said countless times,
"people don't care how much you know until they know how much you care." I think that applies to good laws. They wont be changed until people see that we care.

I believe that abortion will be abolished in my lifetime, but it wont be because we hate abortion doctors. It will be because people see that we love people and that includes both the baby waiting to be born and the mom struggling with life.

For a Christian, if there is a conflict, it is not against flesh and blood, but against powers and principalities, beyond this world. But what is hanging in the balance? Nothing less than the lives of those who need true, unconditional, empowering love. Seeing those lives changed by love is worth losing a dozen culture wars.

Post by Jeremiah Lorrig

Best George Washington Quotes

George Washington by Gilbert Stuart

Today is Presidents Day and therefore George Washington's birthday. In honor of the day, I have compiled my favorite quotes attributed to America's first president. I hope you can appreciate the wisdom here and are inspired by this great man.

----------------------------------------------------------------

“I hope I shall possess firmness and virtue enough to maintain what I consider the most enviable of all titles, the character of an honest man.” ― George Washington

Be courteous to all, but intimate with few, and let those few be well tried before you give them your confidence. - George Washington

True friendship is a plant of slow growth, and must undergo and withstand the shocks of adversity, before it is entitled to the appellation. - George Washington

Let your heart feel for the afflictions and distress of everyone, and let your hand give in proportion to your purse. - George Washington

I walk on untrodden ground. There is scarcely any part of my conduct which may not hereafter be drawn into precedent. - George Washington

Washington Crossing the Delaware by Emanuel Leutze

“To encourage literature and the arts is a duty which every good citizen owes to his country.” ― George Washington

“Real men despise battle, but will never run from it.” ― George Washington

“Be not glad at the misfortune of another, though he may be your enemy.” ― George Washington

George Washington by Robert Field

“The hour is fast approaching, on which the Honor and Success of this army, and the safety of our bleeding Country depend. Remember officers and Soldiers, that you are free men, fighting for the blessings of Liberty -- that slavery will be your portion, and that of your posterity, if you do not acquit yourselves like men.” ― George Washington

“I had rather be on my farm than be emperor of the world.” ― George Washington

“LIBERTY, when it begins to take root, is a plant of rapid growth.” ― George Washington

Truth will ultimately prevail where there is pains to bring it to light. - George Washington

It may be laid down as a primary position, and the basis of our system, that every Citizen who enjoys the protection of a Free Government, owes not only a proportion of his property, but even of his personal services to the defense of it. - George Washington

While we are contending for our own liberty, we should be very cautious not to violate the rights of conscience in others, ever considering that God alone is the judge of the hearts of men, and to him only in this case they are answerable. - George Washington

Signing of the Constitution by Howard Chandler Christy

Post by Jeremiah Lorrig

Conflicted

Last night President Obama announced new changes to the United States' deportation policy:

So we’re going to offer the following deal: If you’ve been in America more than five years. If you have children who are American citizens or illegal residents. If you register, pass a criminal background check and you’re willing to pay your fair share of taxes, you’ll be able to apply to stay in this country temporarily without fear of deportation. You can come out of the shadows and get right with the law.

The political-minded portion of the world now seems divided over whether this is the best or worst news of the week. But I have to admit that I'm quite conflicted about the whole thing.

We've written about immigration a number of time, and have generally supported actions such as the President's from a policy perspective. This sort of change is long overdue, and the principles being implemented are far from foreign to our legal system. In both civil and criminal litigation, doctrines such as latches or statute of limitations require that cases are not allowed outside of a certain timeframe. Even more significant, the doctrine of adverse possession permits squatters to acquire title to property after a certain time. The bases of all these principles is that unused rights, after a certain time, can no longer be asserted. It is a principle of both justice (particularly the mercy side of justice) and efficiency: after a certain time people should feel safe from prosecution and ceaseless dredging up of all past wrongs would bogs down the legal system. That these principles do not appear in our immigration policy makes the policy a bit of an anomaly in light of the rest of our legal system. Applying these principles to our immigration system, ideally while also taking steps to streamline the legal status process (which the President's order does not do), would curtail the current process of first making lawbreakers and then punishing them.

Yet then there is the other hand. Under our constitutional model, legislative power is given to the Legislature while administrative power is given to the Executive. Here, the Legislature has acted to create the mess, and has repeatedly declined to act to fix it. The principles of rule of law and separation of powers means that there is a correct agent to make this sort of change, and it's not the President. The principle of representative democracy means that the laws reflect the will of the people, and the lack of a political will to fix the immigration system somehow means that it's what we want. In fact, for the past six years President Obama himself has repeatedly said that he does not have the legal authority to make the changes that he announced last night.

But then, Obama's announcement is less one of executive action than it is one of executive inaction. It's a statement that certain provisions of the law will not be enforced because they are deemed too harsh. It's an overreach of power that results in a less intrusive government. Examined from a rights/freedom perspective, I am hard pressed to find a credible argument that my rights are somehow harmed by my neighbor's mere existence or presence. That starting point is a slippery slope which quickly leads to all sorts of unpleasantness, not to mention that "refusing to pass" laws to "encourage" the migration of foreigners were among the complaints issued against the King in the Declaration of Independence.

And then back to the balance of power , the reason President Obama can get away with such action is because the legislature is deemed--and rightly so on this issue--inadequate. This, as with our entire administrative law mess, is less a case of power seizure by the President and more one of power abdication by the Legislature. Legislators will now exercise their vocal cords in praising or condemning the action, just as they praised or condemned the thought of the action prior to its announcement, and praised or condemned the prior legislative fixes proposed. However, far be it from them to actually hold a vote; which would interfere with their complaints that their colleagues won't hold a vote. Politically, this poses a challenge to the new Republican majority: will they step up to the challenge with prudence and competence or simply disintegrate into the same political infighting that gave the President this opportunity to act as savior?

So there it is. Approving of the President's action feels like the humane thing to do yet involves the danger of letting ends justify means. Opposing the action protects rule of law yet implicitly involves supporting legislative dysfunction. Oh for real leadership.

A Conflicted War

We Americans like our wars simple. A good side and a bad side. We win, they loose. We can see this in how we remember the American Revolution (liberty verses tyranny), the Civil War (freedom verses slavery), World War II (justice verses Nazis), and the Cold War (free capitalism verses despotic communism). And those conflicts legitimately lend themselves to such interpretations.

Of course, there are positive elements to this. We desire to ensure that we are "right" when taking such a drastic and horrible step as war. This could probably be directly tied back to the Just War Theory. And there is an idealism underlying this as well that we have been permitted to hold as a result of particular geography. We have oceans on either side, and friendly neighbors above and below. We've never faced a serious invasion by a neighboring country. We've never been truly attacked on home soil by another country since 1812 (9/11 is a category of its own, and Hawaii was a territory on December 7, 1941). So we can, to some extent, afford to hold to these ideals in a way those living in other countries may not.

There is a danger here as well. Once convinced we are "right," it is easy conclude that the ends justify the means. Even these good/bad wars, which do lend themselves to such a dichotomy view, have been whitewashed to some degree. War brings out the worst in everyone, which we would rather forget. The founders, upon establishing a country based on freedom, adopted the Alien and Sedation Acts. Sherman marched to the sea. And during WWII, the United States was still segregated and we set up concentration camps for people of Japanese descent. And lets not forget that the nation that holds itself out as the epitome of liberty and justice is also the only nation to have used nuclear weapons against another.

Each of these can be defended on military grounds, and I'm not here to debate their merits, but will say that none of these on their own, whether black marks or not, invalidate the larger purpose of the wars. They simply demonstrate that wars are awful all around.

There are other wars in our history that demonstrate this complexity even starker. These are the wars we do not highlight. The Indian wars are deliberately ignored, WWI is hardly understood, Korea was forgotten, and our small wars are largely lost to history. These types of wars are more complicated than we're comfortable with.

The largest of these uncomfortable wars, however, is the one that more than any other still overshadows our current geopolitical relations: Vietnam. Which leads me to the object of this book review: Embers of War: The Fall of an Empire and the Making of America's Vietnam. (Obtained through Goodreads First Reads program.)

In this book, which won the 2013 Pulitzer Prize in History, Fredrik Logevall examines the events leading up to the United States involvement in Vietnam. Logevall begins his account with the end of WWI, and ends with the first commitment of US troops. Along the way we learn that like WWI, the Vietnam conflict had its origins in European-esque boundary disputes. Like WWII, it erupted over unresolved issues in the wake of WWI. Like the Cold War, it ended up being treated as part of the larger ideological global conflict between capitalism and communism. But underneath all those narratives, the good guys and the bad guys were difficult to distinguish.

Along the way we learn that the communist revolutionaries had their origins in Wilsonian anti-colonialism. Vietnam (French Indochina) was a French colony prior to WWI and watched many of its neighbors obtain independence in the wake of that war. The future communist leader Ho Chi Minh was actually at the Versailles Peace Conference attempting (unsuccessfully, so far as we know) to obtain an audience with President Wilson to make a case for Vietnamese independence. But France wouldn't release the colony.

Then, during WWII, the colony was overrun by the Japanese. At the end of that war, again there was the opportunity for independence, again the opportunity passed and France reacquired its former colony. Roosevelt indicated he might be willing to push back against France and in favor of independence, but his death in office brought an end to that hope. All the while the spirit of independence was growing across the country.

Rebuffed by the Americans and occupied by the French, the Vietnamese turned to the only voice that was speaking for independence. Unfortunately, it was the voice of the communists. Rebellion happened, France threw troops into the colony for a decade and then wore out, a truce was signed dividing the country, the communists got the north but violated the treaty, the United States committed troops.

It is a story of a part of the world slipping from tragedy to tragedy. Of opportunities lost combined with a lack of clear "good" choices. Of the inability to distinguish between an independence movement and a communist revolution. In short, it is a story of  human history in all its complexity. But it's a story that we should learn from more, and maybe soapbox on less.

Click here for more book reviews.

International Leadership (Blair's Lessons, part X)

From Tony Blair's autobiography, an observation that would benefit our current President.

America’s burden is that it wants to be loved, but knows it can’t be. Love is given to nations with which we sympathize; nations that are victims of tragedy, opposition or even poor governance. Powerful nations aren’t loved. They can be admired by their friends, respected by neutrals; they have to be feared by their enemies. 

This is especially so of a nation like America that is not only powerful, but aspires to lead. The leadership will be resented, sometimes actively opposed. It will also, however, be expected. 

* * * 

But America is great for a reason. It is looked up to, despite all the criticism, for a reason. There is a nobility in the American character that has been developed over the centuries, derived no doubt from the frontier spirit, from the waves of migration that form the stock, from the circumstances of independence, from the civil war, from a myriad of historical facts and coincidences But it is there. 

That nobility isn’t about being nicer, better or more successful than anyone else. It is a feeling about the country. It is a devotion to the American ideal that at a certain point transcends class, race, religion or upbringing. That ideal is about values: freedom, the rule of law, democracy. It is also about the way you achieve: on merit, by your own efforts and hard work. But it is, most of all, that in striving for and protecting that ideal, you as an individual take second place to the interests of the nation as a whole. It is what makes the country determined to overcome its challenges. It is what makes its soldiers give their lives in sacrifices. It is what brings every variety of American, from the lowest to the highest, to their feet when “The Star-Spangled Banner” is played. Of course the ideal is not always met—that is obvious. But it is always striven for.

_________

Also in this series:

Reforming Political Parties (Blair's Lessons, part I)

Racing to the Common Good (Blair's Lessons, part II)

The Right Question (Blair's Lessons, part III)

Debate Prelude (Blair's Lessons, part IV)

Undermining Political Opponents (Blair's Lessons, part V)

The Politics of Immigration Reform (Blair's Lessons, part VI)

Presidential Leadership (Blair's Lessons, part VII)

Losing A Popular Issue (Blair's Lessons, part VIII)

Undemocratic Opposition (Blair's Lessons, part IX)

The Senate Battle That Wasn't

One of my favorite examples of Presidential leadership, which I have used as an anecdote in many conversations but never written about here, is the story of President Franklin Delano Roosevelt's navigation of the United Nations Charter through the United States Senate.

Now you may have never heard this story. After all, the Charter, which under the Constitution needed a 2/3 vote in the Senate to be ratified as a treaty, was approved by the Senate on a landslide vote of 89 to 2. What's incredible about that vote is not it's count but its context--just twenty-five years earlier the Senate had rejected President Woodrow Wilson's League of Nations after a long drawn-out legislative battle between the President and the Senate. In contrast, by the time the United Nations Charter came to a vote, it was a mere formality. While cultural and attitude changes can be partly attributed to the change, a lot of the credit belongs to the leadership of President Roosevelt.

But first, we need to examine the Senate's consideration of the League of Nations. The popular story is that the isolationists in the Senate blocked the treaty. And while this is not false, it is not entirely true either. Yes, there was a group of isolationist Senators (known as the "Irreconcilables") who were dead set against joining the League of Nations. However, they only could count between fourteen and sixteen Senators in their group, which was far below the thirty-two "no" votes needed to block the treaty. Even more startling is the fact that the remaining Senators all supported the League of Nations in some form--more than enough to ratify the Treaty. However, this support was also split into two groups, those who supported Wilson's version of the treaty as submitted to the Senate (which I shall call the Advocates) and a more cautions group, known as the Reservationists, who supported the Treaty in principle but wanted to ensure that the United States' sovereignty would be protected.

So what happened? President Wilson negotiated the Treaty without Senate involvement and then submitted it to the Senate for ratification. The Reservationists and Irreconcilables combined their votes in the Senate and attached a list of reservations to the Treaty. When the Treaty with the reservations was voted on, it failed by 39-55. Then a motion to consider the Treaty without reservations was voted on, which also failed by a vote of 38-53.

Although at first glance the two votes look almost identical, they could hardly be more different. On the vote of the Treaty with reservations, the Reservationists voted in support while the Irreconcilables and Advocates voted against (the Advocates were instructed by Wilson to oppose the Treaty with reservations). Then, on the Treaty without reservations, the Advocates voted in support while the Reservationists and Irreconcilables voted against. The result was that while the necessary two-thirds of Senators did support the general concept of the Treaty, at no time did more than one-third support a specific version. As the former Deputy Secretary-General of the League of Nations describes, “The thirty-five whose vote kept the Untied States out of the League included twenty-three of its most convinced supporters, acting in loyal obedience to the bidding of their President.” Wilson took an all-or-nothing approach to Senate ratification, and received nothing.

That backdrop is significant to the story of the United Nations Charter. President Roosevelt took specific steps to avoid Wilson's mistakes, and as a result, the Charter was ratified on a 89 to 2 Senate vote. Here is what Roosevelt did differently.

Instead of handing a pre-written treaty to the Senate, Roosevelt included Senators in the Charter drafting and negotiation process. But even more striking was how Roosevelt did this. At the time, the leading Republican on the Foreign Relations Committee was Senator Arthur Vandenberg. As a newspaper editor, Vandenberg had written against the League of Nations, and he was a strong isolationist when he joined the Senate. However, he had been wavering somewhat in that stance during World War II. All the same, Roosevelt knew that Vandenberg could make Senate ratification very difficult.

So Roosevelt selected Vandenberg to be on the delegation to San Francisco to draft and negotiate the Charter. That would be similar to President Obama asking Rep. Paul Ryan to be his budget czar or (even more aptly) selecting Sen. Rand Paul as a delegate to a United Nations meeting.

Senator Vandenberg was naturally suspicious of the offer. He told Roosevelt that he could accept only if it were understood that he was not committed to supporting the finished product in the Senate--a condition Roosevelt agreed to.

At the Conference, Vandenberg threw himself entirely into the writing of the Charter. However, he maintained his independence and at least once even used the threat of his Senate veto to influence the negotiation and drafting. The result was a Charter that he could and did support, an endorsement that neutralized the Senate opposition and made ratification a formality. And in a particularly ironic twist, the approved United Nations Charter looked an awful lot like the League of Nations Treaty with the proposed reservations.

This contrast between Wilson and Roosevelt illustrates effective leadership traits. Wilson thought he could simply hand the Senate a finished product and railroad it through ignoring sympathetic criticism. His inability to either consider his opponents motivation or compromise drove away those who supported the fundamental concept, resulting in defeat.

In contrast, Roosevelt neutralized his potential chief opponent, not by pushing him aside but by including him in the finished product. Roosevelt was able to take those on the fence, include and consider their concerns, and ultimately turn them into supporters. That this tactic worked is demonstrated by the lack of Senate resistance to the Charter's ratification. President Roosevelt's ability to concede small issues and incorporate his opposition meant that no fight was necessary.



Sources:

Dana Fleming, The Role of the Senate in Treaty-Making: A Survey of Four Decades, The American Political Science Review 28, no. 4: 583-598 (1934).

James Gazell, Arthur H. Vandenberg, Internationalism, and the United Nations, Political Science Quarterly 88, no. 3: 375-394 (1973).

Leo Goss, The Charter of the United Nations and the Lodge Reservations, The American Journal of International Law 41, no. 3: 531-554 (1947).

W. Stull Holt, Treaties Defeated by the Senate: A Study of the Struggle between President and Senate over the Conduct of Foreign Relations (1933).

Townsend Hoopes and Douglas Brinkley, FDR and the Creation of the U.N. (1997).

F.P. Walters, A History of the League of Nations (1952).