I’m a former civil servant. We are professionals, not a ‘deep state.’
|
Version 0 of 1. Russell E. Travers retired from the civil service this month after being removed as the acting director of the National Counterterrorism Center. I retired from the federal civil service this month. My 42-year career began during the Carter administration and involved service to seven presidents: four Republicans and three Democrats. Most recently, I had the privilege of leading the dedicated professionals of the National Counterterrorism Center; over four decades, I worked throughout the intelligence community, on the National Security Council and overseas. In all those years, I never saw anyone, at any level, attempt to undermine any president. Rather, I worked with tens of thousands of individuals who took seriously their oath to the Constitution, generally shunned the limelight and wanted only to work on behalf of the United States. Given all this, it was tremendously disconcerting to hear continued references to an alleged “deep state” and to personally have heard a senior official dismiss the nonpolitical staff of the Department of Homeland Security as “a bunch of Democrats.” I was referred to at a White House meeting as “an Obama holdover.” That’s technically true, insofar as I was an Obama/Bush/Clinton/Bush/Reagan/Carter holdover. But in a broader sense, it was utter nonsense. Yes, the federal bureaucracy can be frustrating, even stultifying. A workforce of more than 2 million people, although broadly competent and hard-working, inevitably has poor performers. Some undoubtedly have acted illegally. Organizations may be overly focused on turf; on occasion, it felt as though I was spending more time fending off the bureaucracy than fending off terrorists. Discouraging, to be sure. But there is nothing approaching the kind of malfeasance that would justify broad-brush accusations of a “deep state.” The federal bureaucracy’s institutional responsibilities can put it at odds with political leadership. The intelligence community strives to get the facts straight and to provide objective analysis. Most often correct, but certainly not perfect, intelligence informs the national risk equation and attempts to keep the policy debate intellectually honest. This is particularly important in a world in which fiction routinely passes for fact. If the intelligence community needs to correct understatements of threat (no, the Islamic State is not defeated) or correct overstatements of threat (no, data doesn’t suggest a significant threat from refugees), that’s not a “deep state” undermining the president; that’s a professional civil service doing its job. Just like the civil servants at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Justice Department and everywhere else in the government. A century ago, Walter Lippmann and John Dewey debated the manner in which democracy functions. They agreed that an idyllic, Jeffersonian notion of an informed electorate choosing its leaders simply didn’t exist. Factors they saw militating against Jefferson’s narrative included a complicated world; difficulty establishing “facts”; large portions of an electorate that, busy living their lives, were often uninformed; and elected officials who may not be up to the task. Lippmann and Dewey didn’t agree on a solution, but they recognized the critical role of expertise. The Lippmann-Dewey critique is truer today, in our extraordinarily complicated world, than it was during the 1920s. Misinformation and intense polarization dominate, with education lacking in both civics and critical-thinking skills. In this environment, federal bureaucratic expertise — devoid of passion or prejudice — is an ever more critical prerequisite for administering federal responsibilities, providing transparency, and informing both the body politic and policymakers. I depart government service more convinced than ever that a professional, highly competent, nonpartisan civil service is essential for the success of this great American experiment, as are the scientific community, an objective Fourth Estate, academia and others. Now, elections have consequences. While aspects of government operations run as though on autopilot, civil service technocrats will always operate under political direction, fulfilling statutory responsibilities within a wide range of legal policy choices. But I would respectfully offer a gentle observation to my political colleagues. Policymakers tend to hold their own opinions in high regard. This is sometimes warranted; sometimes not. They would often benefit from listening a little more. The civil service is here to assist duly elected representatives and appointees administer the government. Those who use the available expertise to inform their decision-making are invariably more successful than those who don’t. This country has its hands full. As Americans grapple with the legacy of our historical demons, our failures to address the needs of large swaths of our population and the challenges of covid-19, we still need to confront long-standing questions about our nation’s role in the world, the interconnected nature of global challenges and even the adequacy of our governmental structures. As Theodore Roosevelt said, we need people “in the arena” working these issues; our civil servants do exactly that. It has been a privilege to serve. Read more: Henry Olsen: Tensions with China are rising. What’s the next step? Michael Gerson: The Trump administration has released a lot of shameful documents. This one might be the worst. Karen Tumulty: Trump and his minions are trying to destroy Fauci. No wonder the U.S. is doing so poorly. John W. Nicholson: The U.S. must respond forcefully to Russia and the Taliban. Here’s how. |