Bonus 220: Verify, Don't Trust
Those who are starting to think about how to rebuild institutions that the current administration has undermined need to be clear-eyed about the prospect that their control of events will be fleeting.
Welcome back to the weekly bonus content for “One First.” Although Monday’s regular newsletter will remain free for as long as I’m able to do this, I put much of the weekly “bonus” issue behind a paywall as an added incentive for those who are willing and able to support the work that goes into putting this newsletter together every week. I’m grateful to those of you who are already paid subscribers, and I hope that those of you who aren’t will consider a paid subscription—both to have full access to the bonus content and to more broadly support these efforts—if and when your circumstances permit:
This week’s bonus topic was prompted by three different conversations in which I’ve participated in the last three days—each of which has reflected a particular variation on the same broader theme. Monday afternoon and yesterday afternoon, I was part of two separate roundtable discussions (conducted under the Chatham House Rule), one about the erosion of the credibility and legitimacy of a significant government institution; and one about the inefficacy of existing constraints on the President’s power to use military force. In both sessions, at least some of the conversation focused on how to rebuild/reinforce those institutions and constraints—should the ability to do so present itself sometime soon.
And yesterday morning, I testifed before the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee—suggesting, among other things, that the hearing’s focus (on, of all things, the Second Amendment) was singularly misplaced given all of the other conversations we should be having right now about both the widespread constitutional violations for which the executive branch is responsible and Congress’s refusal to do anything about them. During the Q&A, Senator Johnson attempted to brand me a hypocrite for asserting that President Trump is abusing the war powers—apparently oblivious to the fact that I have written, for decades, about how presidents of both parties have done so. (He also asked me if I support “the ayatollah.” I regret not responding that he’s “weak on crime.”)
What these conversations have in common is the difference between the separation of parties and the separation of powers. There are a lot of people out there who think that the way to fix our current problems is by putting different people in charge—people who will be in a position to rebuild internal and external trust in these institutions because they are the right kind of people and they’re on the right “team.”
I certainly agree that focusing on the people will help; principled leadership unquestionably matters—as its absence is driving home in spades on a daily hourly basis. But it seems to me that, among the many lessons the past 15 months have (or should have) taught us, an especially important one is that the wrong people can, in very short order, undermine trust that it took years, if not decades, for the right people to build. And we should all be clear-eyed about the possibility that the American people will elect the wrong people again.
The goal of a reconstructive agenda, then, has to be not just about rebuilding the institutions from the inside out, but ensuring that there are better external checks in place, should history repeat itself, to constrain the ability of the wrong people to abuse their authority quite so easily—by creating or expanding external accountability mechanisms. The old Russian proverb that President Reagan parroted is “trust but verify.” As I elaborate upon below the fold, the theme of any rebuilding agenda ought to be “verify, don’t trust.”
For those who aren’t paid subscribers, we’ll be back with our continuing coverage of the Supreme Court (no later than) Monday. For those who are, please read on.
