For all that the Trump Administration is amazingly rich fodder for our national corps of comedians, the intelligence community is becoming very concerned about the damage being done to one of the most important features of the Washington bureaucracy – its dedication to truth rather than ideology. On Lawfare, Elizabeth McElvein reviews national attitudes towards various Trump-related controversies and discovers a disturbing polarization, as in this example:
One of the most anticipated episodes in the series of Russia-related investigations was the testimony of former FBI Director James Comey before the Senate Intelligence Committee at the beginning of last month. With the testimony billed as a “political Super Bowl,” Americans’ acutely partisan assessment of the proceedings is to be expected: a Quinnipiac University poll found that a slim majority (54 percent) of Americans believe that President Trump fired former FBI Director Comey to disrupt the FBI’s investigation into possible coordination between the Trump campaign and the Russian government. This figure includes 89 percent of Democrats, 55 percent of independents, and just 13 percent of Republicans. By contrast, 39 percent of Americans believe that President Trump fired Director Comey because he had lost confidence in Comey’s ability to lead the FBI well. Support for this position breaks along similarly partisan lines, including a whopping 79 percent of Republicans, 38 percent of Independents and just six percent of Democrats.
Though unsurprising, the intensely partisan nature of the investigations is a source of legitimate concern, especially insofar as it degrades Congressional capacity to conduct meaningful, impartial oversight of the intelligence community. In a recent op-ed, Dan Glickman, the former Chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, expresses concern that “for the first time … unhealthy partisan divisions by some are seriously impacting the independence and objectivity of the work of the House Intelligence Committee.”
Elizabeth’s concern?
One obvious explanation for these findings is that President Trump has repeatedly cast aspersions on intelligence community findings related the to Russia. At a news conference just yesterday, he responded to a yes-or-no question about Russian interference in the 2016 election by suggesting that “nobody really knows” if Russia was solely responsible. The president’s refusal to affirm the intelligence community’s findings pushes that analysis toward the realm of political subjectivity. These data might also reflect Americans’ distrust of institutional authority more broadly—a tendency that pollster Guy Molyneux characterizes as one of the “least appreciated” characteristics of the American electorate, and which, he writes, Trump was remarkably adept at exploiting over the course of his presidential campaign.
Elsewhere on Lawfare, Joshua Rovner wrote eloquently about the adverse short- and long-term consequence of the politicization of intelligence community analysis, concluding that for members of the intelligence community “any hope of playing a productive role in the policy process rests on the belief that policymakers [Democrats and Republicans] will value the community’s input without automatically suspecting its motives.” The politicization of fact-based analysis should be of utmost concern to those who value the institutional legitimacy of the intelligence community and of fact-based policy prescription and analysis in the national security sphere.
I have little of insight to add, but it’s worth reiterating that a political world which believes everything is politics is headed for disaster – for both them and us. Suppose the political view dictated the belief that the North Koreans would rollover if attacked, despite intelligence reports to the contrary – and so, to solve this outstanding problem, we rolled a division of Marines onto the beach at Majon. And, in retaliation, they delivered a nuclear weapon right into Seoul.
Or Los Angeles.
The role of non-partisan institutions operating in the political environment is absolutely vital, whether it’s the NSA or the Congressional Budget Office. It’s completely OK to question whether an institution is actually non-partisan, but only with strong evidence in hand.
Not the vapid lipping off of a power-hungry politico.
Elizabeth has ample reason for concern – as should we all.
