Fixing Our Own Dysfunction: Five Traits to Demand in Politicians

photo from ivn.com

Washington's dysfunction is really our dysfunction. We are responsible for whom we send to represent us. If we are intellectually lazy partisan hacks, our politicians will be as well. We fix our own dysfunction by sending better politicians to Washington!

Sending better politicians to Washington requires us to reconsider which leadership traits we prioritize. Given the lack of admirable politicians in DC these days, let's go back in history to find a leader worthy of emulation.

One such leader was John Quincy Adams of Massachusetts.

Here are five important attributes of John Quincy's that we should insist in seeing in our elected officials.

Inclusiveness

“...I have followed [my] convictions with a single eye to the interests of the whole nation…”

John Quincy insisted that he represented the whole nation--not special interests. His radical inclusiveness lasted throughout his career. As a young diplomat, John Quincy berated a senior British official for attacking John Quincy's political rivals in a previous administration back home (a lesson modern officials should heed). Toward the end of his career when elected to the House, he refused to affiliate with a political party. He took up the cause of the United States.

Many politicians today prefer identity politics and special interests. John Quincy knew, however, that although political factions are a feature of our politics, America's best leaders bring people together.

Intellectual Curiosity

"As Czar Alexander had learned, few Western diplomats could match John Quincy's mastery of classical languages, history, and modern languages."

John Quincy loved books and learning. He knew Latin, Greek, Dutch, Italian, French, Spanish, Russian, and German. One winter as a young man, he read dozens and dozens of dense volumes on classics, history, and economics. His intellectual curiosity lasted his entire life and led him to help establish American astronomy and the Smithsonian Institutes. One other point: he loathed academicians. His mother commiserated with him, writing, "Whilst salaries are so small, it cannot be expected that gentlemen of the first abilities will devote their leaves to [teaching]."

Constituents should examine candidates' speeches and debates to determine their relative grasp of issues. They might even ask about candidates’ reading habits, though reading habits may be reflected in speeches and debates. John Quincy's learning made him a brilliant orator, but he struggled connecting with the common people (not everyone appreciated his Latin puns). Just because a politician has some trouble connecting with voters at first, don't dismiss him or her immediately.

Humility

"For the good of my country -- not for the good of my career."

Humble service, not lust for power, motivated John Quincy. He was a statesmen. The difference between the statesmen and politician, in his view, was that statesmen accepted--not sought--public office. He spent his career concerned that he didn't have enough knowledge and wisdom for the positions into which we was appointed. He even declined a justiceship on the Supreme Court due to his fear that he lacked sufficient legal knowledge. He was a Harvard lawyer.

It's hard to find humility in politics. A politician who is self-aware enough to understand the limits of his or her knowledge and what is knowable would be a tremendous asset to the Republic. The problem is, this politician won't speak so easily in soundbytes.

Capable

"...America's most skilled diplomat and intelligence gleaner."

John Quincy was effective. He served as diplomat, treaty negotiator, senator, ambassador, secretary of state, president, litigator, orator, and representative. At 16-years old, the U.S. minister to Russia made John Quincy his personal assistant. Adams, as a young lawyer, defended President Washington. He rebuked the populist despotism of the French Revolution, attacking Thomas Paine, Thomas Jefferson, and Jacobin extremism. President Washington named him Minister to the Hague for his effort, where he spent six hours per day gathering intelligence, writing reports, and building the expertise to become America's greatest European Affairs expert. James Monroe appointed him Secretary of State, where he conceived of a famous American foreign policy called the Monroe Doctrine.

Just about the only thing many politicians are capable of today is raising money and winning elections. There is, however, a positive trend of former public servants stepping up to run for office. Let's hope the trend continues.

Principled

"You are supported by no party; you have too honest a heart, too independent a mind, and too brilliant talents to be trusted by any man who is under the dominion of party maxims..."

John Quincy first allegiance was to truth and justice. John F. Kennedy's book Profiles in Courage recognized his principled fortitude. While in the Senate, he opposed his own party to save President Jefferson's Louisiana Purchase. As President, his belief in the improving the common good and national links led him to advocate for national infrastructure and science--which made him very unpopular. As a statesmen, he shamed other politicians who turned to foreign powers in support of their narrow, partisan objectives. But his two most precious principles were the rights of life and ordered liberty. As a result, John Quincy became one of America's first and most important abolitionists. He defended the escaped Amistad slaves in front of the Supreme Court and gave President Lincoln (who served with Adams in the House of Representatives) the legal basis for his Emancipation Proclamation. Although hated in some quarters, his policy positions made him revered in most parts of America. His death impacted the nation as much as the deaths of Washington and Franklin.

The dramatic lack of principle on display in American politics is heart-breaking. Most politicians are little more than actors playing a part--shrill and self-serving. Their positions are not principled; they're based on public opinion and party preferences. This is shameful.

Conclusion

"You must have one great purpose of existence...to make your talents and your knowledge most beneficial to your country and most useful to mankind."

John Quincy's remarkable life and service to the United States make him worthy of further study. For future reference, please pick up a copy of Harlow Giles Unger's biography, John Quincy Adams, whose pages provide the source of the above quotations and facts.

We should insist on future statesmen displaying those traits of John Quincy Adams: inclusiveness, intellectual curiosity, humility, capability, and principled fortitude.

Baby Boomer Foreign Affairs: A Critical Assessment

This article is dedicated to Capt. Christopher “Tripp” Zanetis, who died in Iraq during combat operations on March 15, 2018.

The Constitution defines Government’s mandate in foreign affairs: ensure the American people’s safety, prosperity, and liberty. U.S. foreign policy from 1945-1990 contributed to those goals. American policy was so successful that President Clinton’s December 1999 national security strategy noted that “America [was] at the height of its influence.” Today, however, the American people are less safe, less prosperous, and less free than they were. What happened?

As the 25-year Baby Boomer reign enters its final act, Millennials and Gen-X should assess the contexts, challenges, policies, and implementation of the Clinton, Bush, and Obama Administrations (spoiler alert: they all get participation trophies). We should draw lessons for ourselves as we prepare to lead during what may be a turbulent period in the Republic’s history.

The Clinton Administration: Strategic Drift

The Clinton Administration’s policy context was the strategic drift caused by the Soviet Union’s downfall. The absence of America’s primary adversary presented the Clinton Administration with two dilemmas. First, the Administration needed to justify continued global leadership to an isolationist-inclined public. Second, without an organizing principle, the Administration struggled to prioritize its goals.

America’s strategic drift did not reflect a lack of challenges. The Clinton Administration grappled with arms control and non-proliferation, a no-fly zone, a near-war on the Korean peninsula, genocide in Europe and Africa, economic threats posed by new information technology’s application to economic espionage, and Islamist terrorist attacks. Compared to the Soviet menace, however, America faced little resistance to its dominance.

The Clinton Administration’s policy response arrested America’s strategic drift. During a 1993 speech, National Security Advisor Anthony Lake promulgated the policy of enlargement. The policy advocated for expanding free market democracies and supported NATO’s expansion. To signal the continued requirement for American leadership and create a framework for prioritizing goals, the Clinton Administration expanded the definition of America’s interests to include vital interests, important national interests such as economics and trade, and humanitarian and other interests.

Implementation focused on multilateral diplomatic and economic tools—military power was less emphasized. In response to civil war in Somalia and ethnic cleansing in Rwanda, the Clinton Administration resisted the temptation to deepen U.S. military involvement. Where it did engage militarily, the Administration made certain that it operated within an international framework (e.g., in 1999, the United States led a NATO air campaign in Yugoslavia). Economically, the Clinton Administration negotiated new free trade agreements: the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and the General Agreement on Tarrifs and Trade, and passed legislation outlawing economic espionage. Diplomatically, the Clinton Administration pursued START II, the NATO-Russia founding act, a joint U.S.-Russia launch of the International Space Station, and an attempt to broker Middle East peace.

By 2001, the American people faced no major threats. America’s economy was booming. Federal spending was reduced and diverted to domestic priorities. Finally, the American people’s liberty was so secure that the public began to take it for granted. However, the Clinton Administration’s foreign policies were questionably relevant to these outcomes.

There are three lessons from the Administration’s foreign policy. First, action is not always better than inaction. The opportunities presented by the Soviet’s downfall enticed action; however, NATO’s expansion into the former Soviet bloc carried longer-term risk. Today, Moscow justifies its aggression as a response to NATO’s expansion into its near-abroad (the issue is hotly debated). Second, prudence is a virtue. Critics lambasted the Administration for withdrawing from Somalia and failing to act in Rwanda. However, the application of American military power in the absence of clear objectives and legal basis would risk overextension, mission creep, and drain resources. Third, everything cannot be a priority. The Administration focused limited resources on a range of issues. The application of too-few resources on too many issues may have contributed to the failure of U.S. intelligence to detect a deadly terrorist threat.

The Bush Administration – GWOT as Grand Strategy

The Bush Administration’s policy context was the 9/11 attacks. The 9/11 attacks halted America’s strategic drift. For the first time since the Cold War, Americans wondered whether they were safe. Partisan politics of the 1990s and the 2000 presidential election fell away and the American people united briefly. Internationally, nations condemned terrorism. NATO made ready for war in Afghanistan. Traditional foes such as Russia, Iran, and Libya offered support or placation.

The Bush Administration’s strategic challenge was rebuilding a capability to respond to an unknown threat. The Americans did not understand the terrorists’ plans, capabilities, and intentions. Further, they did not understand to the extent to which terrorist groups received weaponry, financial assistance, or material support from hostile nation-states. As a result, the Administration could not anticipate what further attacks were on the horizon.

The Bush Administration’s response declared war on terror and shaped its policy around a confrontation between good and evil. Anyone not “with us” was “against us.” Fearful of another attack, America’s leaders resolved to address terror’s underlying cause and implemented the Freedom Agenda. A congressional majority authorized military action against Saddam Hussein. America determined to bring democracy to the Middle East.

Implementation emphasized military action. Counterterrorism substituted for grand strategy. Political strategy and diplomacy were deemphasized (the United States withdrew from the 1972 anti-ballistic missile treaty, the International Criminal Court, and the Kyoto Protocol). The Congress increased resources significantly and made reforms to intelligence sharing and coordination. The Administration adapted circumspect intelligence and detention practices. Finally, the Congress expanded the government’s authority to collect information on threats and debated a domestic intelligence agency.

The Administration did not forsake completely the non-military instruments of power. America established the Proliferation Security Initiative and United Nations Security Council Resolution 1540. It negotiated new trade agreements, including the Dominican Republic-Central America Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA-DR). In Afghanistan and to a lesser extent, Iraq, it built Coalitions to support stability operations, police and military training, and civil society engagements.

In retrospect, the Bush Administration did not advance America’s safety, prosperity, and liberty. Osama bin Laden was still at large and two wars cost many lives and nearly $5 trillion. Economically, government spending grew and a crash in the U.S. real estate market precipitated the worst financial crisis since the 1930s. Finally, the American public stopped taking liberties for granted. Voters asked whether government exceeded legal limits in intelligence, surveillance, and detention activities.

There are three lessons from the Bush Administration. First, prioritization was key to success. The counterterrorism priority brought policy attention and resources that built a formidable capability. Second, policymakers should set objectives within constitutionally-prescribed goals. In a misguided effort to solve Islamist terrorism, the Administration tried to bring about democracy using the military instrument of power. As such action is not a constitutionally-prescribed goal, the Republicans lost the 2006 mid-term elections and eventually the presidency to an anti-war candidate (President Obama). Finally, hubris and emotion must be avoided. America's relative power and righteous anger let it to overreach. Overreach destroys empires.

The Obama Administration – Naïve Reset

The Obama Administration’s context was its perceived need to reset America’s foreign relations (e.g., by closing the Guantanamo Bay detention facility). President Obama repudiated President Bush’s perceived unilateralism during his 2009 inaugural address:

“[Earlier generations] understood that our power alone cannot protect us, nor does it entitle us to do as we please. Instead they knew that our power grows through its prudent use; our security emanates from the justness of our cause, the force of our example, the tempering qualities of humility and restraint.”

Partisanship reached fevered pitch as rivals and critics accused the Administration of undertaking an “apology” tour.

The Administration’s strategic challenges included a number of inherited and unforeseen crises. It inherited a strong CT capability but Osama bin Laden was at large. It also inherited two wars, a financial crash, and growing tensions with Russia and China. The Administration grappled the war in Libya, the Arab Spring, the Syrian civil war, Israel’s reaction to Iranian nuclear capabilities, a failed reset with Russia and Russia’s annexing of Crimea, China’s building man-made islands in contested international waters, and the rise of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS). The 2001-era domestic political consensus evaporated and complicated America’s ability to respond. Financially, the Congress enacted the Budget Control Act of 2011 and reduced national security spending.

The Obama Administration’s policy response reduced the ambition of U.S. strategic objectives. Washington redoubled its focus on the “war of necessity” in Afghanistan while drawing down U.S. forces from the “war of choice” in Iraq. It put public timelines on both conflicts. It focused on building local forces while reducing its own requirements. Unilateral actions were limited to attacks against high-value targets such as Osama bin Laden. The Administration saw America’s future in the Asia-Pacific and shifted focus from the Middle East. However, as each crisis generated novel dilemmas, trade-offs, and pressures, the Administration’s decision-making became gridlocked.

Implementation emphasized diplomacy. The Administration accepted risk in the timeliness of achieving its objectives by working “by, with, and through” local security partners. It negotiated temporary restrictions on Iran’s nuclear program, normalized relations with Myanmar and Cuba, negotiated the Paris climate accords, and a pursued a failed Middle East peace process It failed to prevent North Korea’s nuclearization, maintain America’s long-standing partnership with Egypt, and resolve the Syrian civil war. Economically, the Administration implemented strong sanctions against Iran, negotiated the Transpacific Partnership (TPP), and sanctioned Russia. Militarily, the Administration built an international Coalition to counter ISIS, enabled Europe’s military intervention in Libya, and provided limited assistance for Saudi Arabia’s war in Yemen. It also authorized freedom of navigation operations in contested waters of the South China Sea and sold arms to Taiwan.

The Administration’s results were mixed. Like the Bush Administration, the Obama team overreached with its preferred instrument of power: diplomacy. When diplomacy was not underwritten by a credible threat, foreign powers viewed the United States as feckless. Still, by 2016, the organized terrorist threat to the U.S. homeland was eradicated. The Iranian nuclear program was curbed. After withdrawing from Iraq, the Administration redeployed and pushed back ISIS from its physical caliphate. Libya remained a source of instability. Tensions grew with Russia and China. America’s prosperity was returning, though the economy lagged. Finally, the debate over civil liberties intensified as partisanship increased and accusations of Russian meddling in the U.S. presidential election came to the fore.

There are three primary lessons from the Obama Administration. First, persuasion and political strategy are cost-effective instruments of power. In 2009, the Obama Administration’s no-conditions outreach to Iran prompted a politically-costly public rejection. However, Iran’s rejection painted Obama as the reasonable actor. Coupled with provocative Iranian rhetoric, the Administration parried Iranian actions to rally the world in crippling Iran’s economy. Second, geography is essential. Turkey reminded Washington of geography when it let refugees flow into Europe in response to Washington’s working with the Syrian Kurds. The resulting pressures created a wave of new political parties that are threatening European democracy. Finally, American deterrence begins and ends in the White House. Washington’s failure to enforce its Syria red-line diminished its credibility. Iranian influence expanded. Russia deepened its influence in the Middle East. China increased its aggressive actions in disputed territory waters.

Strategic Assessment

U.S. foreign policy over the past 25 years has been a disaster. The United States stumbled after goals well beyond government’s constitutional mandate. It used the instruments of power in an unbalanced way and lurched from strategic drift to militarism to feckless diplomacy. Moreover, America failed to anticipate 9/11. Then, it overreacted by invading two countries. Finally, America then over-learned that lesson and the resulting timidity invited aggression everywhere. The world is far more dangerous as a result. As the risk of catastrophic global war grows, statesmen and stateswomen are rare in Washington.

Threat Picture

Looking forward, the United States faces intensifying competition from nation-state actors. Russia and China seek to revise the U.S.-led international order. North Korea’s nuclear and ballistic missile operations menace international peace. Iran’s unchecked expansion risks provoking a new regional war. The Middle East’s civil wars provide opportunities for terror recruitment and safe-havens and undermine a lasting defeat for ISIS. The wars’ resulting refugee flows destabilize neighboring countries and pressure western democracies with complex social and political challenges. Finally, the U.S. trade deficit remains high and partisan politics undermine meaningful dialogue on climate issues.

America’s allies are also responding. With uncertain American leadership, Europe hastened to implement the Permanent Structured Cooperation (PESCO) and the European Defence Fund (EDF)— moves that threaten the transatlantic alliance. Saudi Arabia led its Coalition to stalemate in Yemen and isolated Qatar. Turkey’s operations in Syria risks the ISIS campaign. South Korea advances an uncoordinated diplomatic track with North Korea. All of these developments generate new escalation risks.

Charting a New Course

It took America 25 years to damage its standing in the world, so charting a new course will likewise be a generational undertaking. It begins with us—Millennials and Gen X—revisiting our strategic thinking and learning lessons from our predecessors. We should seek to align ends, ways, and means within constitutionally-prescribed goals. We might improve our arts of persuasion and political strategy. We should account for the “permanent things” of human nature and history (and, I would add geography) in our calculations. We should abandon partisan ideology and replace it with Roman virtue (energetic manliness, piety toward ancestors, family, and country, and prudence). We must drop the arrogant belief that all problems have American solutions and all opportunities should be acted upon. Finally, we distinguish between interests and preferences and adjust our policy appetites accordingly.

We also need institutional reform. The national security enterprise is ill-equipped to respond to nation-state competitors. Our generation should look to reform the 1947 National Security Act. Other than special interests, few benefit from the behemoth bureaucracy we have today: a Department of Homeland Security with 22 subordinate agencies; a Director of National Intelligence with 17 subordinate agencies, a Department of Justice comprised of multiple enforcement agencies, and a Department of Defense comprised of the Office of the Secretary of Defense, the Joint Staff, three military departments, four military services (possibly five services someday), 10 combatant commands, the National Guard Bureau, and dozens of agencies and field activities. Leaders should set a goal for America’s military to become twice as lethal at half the cost (if the Congress was wise, it would allocate the other half of that budget to NASA so that it might tackle some of the real long-term threats to safety, prosperity, and liberty).

Finally, future leaders must drive social reform. We must strengthen a just domestic order through bold steps in campaign finance and gerrymandering reform. We should lead public opinion and debate away from platitudes to, as Secretary Mattis demands, defining problems to “a Jesuit’s level of satisfaction.” Last, we must educate ourselves in history (especially of antiquity), civic virtue, and the millennia-long evolution of western civilization from Jerusalem, to Athens, Rome, London, and, finally, to Philadelphia, that produced America’s constitutional republican order. If we act upon these lessons over the next decade, America will strengthen and preserve itself for posterity. If we fail, we will not earn us a participation trophy.

The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not reflect the official policy or position of the Department of Defense or the U.S. Government.

Boomer Bust: An Appeal from the New Conservatives to the Old

Populist Justice: Murder of Marie Louise of Savoy During the September Massacres

Dear Boomers,

One of the biggest disgraces of your generation’s 25-year reign is your flirtation with populism. This scourge is bubbling up again across Europe and America, and some of you (both on the political left and right) are encouraging it. History shows that stirring up popular emotions may serve short-term political goals, but ultimately they unleash the uncontrollable demon of mob violence. 

Three deficiencies allow populism to seduce you. First, you became lazy. Russell Kirk notes that “…one arrives at principle through comprehension of nature and history…”, but you find principle by path of least resistance: cable news, social media, and party platitudes. Second, you are consumed with anger—at Obama, illegal immigrants, the establishment, political correctness—and some of that anger is legitimate--but it softens you for manipulation. Third, you lack humility. Humility sharpens your understanding of the boundaries of your knowledge and what is knowable. Without it, you cannot learn.

Your deficiencies make you easy prey for “sophisters, calculators, economists” and demagogues. They use you for their financial and political ends. But there is a method to fortify yourselves against demagogues: reading about histories and great statesmen. These readings will cure your lack of humility by revealing your ignorance. They will inoculate your mind against anger and laziness manipulated to someone else’s ends.

One such conservative statesmen was Edmund Burke. He was an Irishman born to a Catholic mother and a Protestant father. Burke served in the British House of Commons during a tumultuous period of political realignment across Europe and America. The American and French Revolutions were the defining events of his time. If a man’s enemies offer any clue to his convictions, Burke’s enemies included Jean-Jacques Rousseau and Karl Marx.

Burke’s writings on the French Revolution form the foundation of modern conservative political thought (and, ironically, classical liberalism—more on this later). His most famous essay, “Reflections on the Revolution in France”, sparked intense interest and controversy, but in it Burke put forward core conservative principles. Speaking to a British population suffering from injustice, he warned his fellow countrymen not to follow France's path. France abandoned its virtue and would inevitably descend into mob violence. In contrast, Burke supported the American Revolution as an evolution and continuation of a just order.

Burke’s party (the Whigs) and the British public rejected him over his opposition to the French Revolution. The Whigs needed more votes after losing an election and courted supporters of the French Revolution. Burke thought the Whigs sold out for political reasons. Over time, however, Burke was vindicated. What France’s wealthy demagogues instigated as a populist movement to “drain the swamp” and free the people from a corrupt establishment devolved into the Reign of Terror and a totalitarian bloodbath. The ensuing chaos led to the rise of Napoleon—himself responsible for an additional six million deaths—and a further 50 years of revolutions and counter-revolutions.

Burke's Principles of Conservatism and their Application

Hopefully you are beginning to grasp the dangers of populism. If you do, you must do more than just reject it. You must rediscover and fight for our principles. One caveat: as a statesman, Burke never designed a comprehensive political philosophy. Instead, he always focused on the tangible and practical application of government’s actions on the people he served. We will also focus on the practical application of our principles.

Conservatism’s first principle is the sanctity of human life under natural law. Burke's reading of the new French Constitution confirmed his worst fears. Abandoning natural law, the French Constitution's supreme basis of law was the general public will. Without a check on popular will, the State had authority to define arbitrarily the relative values of human life. If you fell out of favor with public opinion, you could receive the guillotine.

The practical application of this principle causes significant controversy with the Jacobins’ heirs. They mainlined the belief that popular sentiment can define human life. This radical change facilitated history's worst revolutionary regimes (Nazis, Soviets, Maoists). Their mass murdering required flexible definitions of human (or sub-human) life. But it also led to less obvious problems. The fierce debate over whether the pre-born are considered human is one example. Additional examples include policy debates associated with the elderly, refugees, illegal immigrants, criminals, and the poor. One can detect an ugly assumption concerning the relative value of these lives in the debates.

Conservatism’s second principle is that just and ordered liberty is humanity’s birthright, but must arise through a deliberate process (unlike, say, your invasion of Iraq). Burke did not begrudge the French their liberty--he questioned the justice and process by which it came about. The French Revolution destroyed the established order and emphasized a selfish and disconnected liberty. Unordered liberty subjugates individuals to the whims of the mob.

The practical application of this principle also remains a source of intense debate. Burke acknowledged that unselfish and ordered liberty demands limitations on individuals. In this context, we should consider the 2nd amendment issue. Our just and ordered liberty already establishes restrictions on access to certain classes of weapons. You are not allowed to possess ballistic missiles or tanks or nuclear weapons, for example. But how do you compare your desire for other classes of weapons against the public’s right to life?  Spare me the pretense of countering government tyranny—that’s why you have a national guard. If you think your AR-15 will save you from an angry Uncle Sam, look up footage of drone-launched hellfire missiles. (This point of view makes me liberal because I’m conservative—see how confusing this is?)

Conservatism’s third principle requires significant humility and thus might be the most difficult for you. It emphasizes the importance of continuity over innovation in political affairs. Our obligation is to build upon humanity’s collective wisdom, accumulated across millennia, to conserve our species. New ideas should be vetted against this collective wisdom instead of pursuing radical new ideas and innovations in politics--these things are very dangerous. In fact, inventions, abstractions, metaphysical politics, and ideologies pose a fatal threat to life and liberty.

The practical application of this principle is two-fold. First, we must oppose leaders who seek to make radical changes or innovate in affairs of state.  Social grievances must be addressed; however, they must be addressed by modifying and building upon the established order and not overturning and destroying it. Second, democratic governance requires especially pious and consecrated leaders due to statesmen’s extraordinary power and trust. They must understand ancient ideas and evolution of thought that brought humanity to where it is. They must also understand how easy it is to lose everything. 

Recalled to Life

It is not too late. Burke can recall you to conservatism. Find in Burke your inner prudence and moderation—traits incompatible with the passions of populism.  Learn to overcome your laziness to see the obverse of an issue. Replace your anger with ambition and cure your lack of humility with learning.

You must rediscover your convictions. Doing so will bring consistency to your viewpoints and will allow you to transcend partisan platitudes. Burke took unpopular stands against his party for the sake of his principles. Life, liberty, and continuity must factor into your voting habits, social media posts, dinner conversations with friends, and political debates with others. Leave hypocrisy for others.

You also need to know the details. Burke did. No more maudlin sloganeering. For example, please stop complaining about abstractions like an unspecified failure to adhere to constitutional principles you probably do not understand (few do). Instead, learn the details (like what is the 21st amendment or what does Article II cover?). Then you will see through those seeking to manipulate you.

You also must understand that conservatism and liberalism need each other. As Burke wrote, the clash between reasoned liberalism and conservatism creates “…a reciprocal struggle of discordant powers [that] draws out the harmony of the universe.” This leads to compromise, which naturally begets moderation and prudence. Burke influenced classical liberalism. American liberal historian Richard Hofstadter lamented that he found Burke deep in the minds of American liberals such as Woodrow Wilson.

Finally, continuity does not mean stasis. As Kirk says, “Society must progress and prudent change is the means of social preservation.” It would behoove you, studying Burke, to no longer confuse ends and means.  Limited government, executive orders, laws and regulations, and even the U.S. Constitution itself—these must be allowed to change and evolve.  They are simply means for achieving society’s ends: life, ordered liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. 

America’s founding fathers, whom you profess to adore, rejected populism. They established republican governance to protect individuals from the will of the people. They knew that populism is dangerous to individual life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. Our government, whose constitution frames these ends in natural law, is the crown jewel of your inheritance. If you continue to squander it, you will condemn your children to a world of tyranny and death.

Many young people, minorities, and women detest conservatism. Older, white conservatives are dying off. Given the importance of both liberalism and conservatism for guiding social progress, a shrinking generation of new conservatives will all but guarantee revolution. We must avert this outcome. Communicating our views in a rational and logical way helps others see the importance of principled conservativism. But we must stand up in the face of political pressures. We must be brave and speak truth to power. Winston Churchill said, “Some men change their party for the sake of their principles; others their principles for the sake of their party.” Edmund Burke did not compromise his principles and neither should you.

The Dreams of the Deep State

The Deep State is called by many names.  Politicos from the left call it the blob; from the right, the swamp.  Others call it the iron triangle, the shadow government, and the military-industrial-congressional complex.  These names convey a degree of autonomy to the Deep State, yet reveal little about its nature.  Herein lies the problem with political language.  As Orwell said, political language “falls upon the facts like soft snow, blurring the outlines, and covering up all the details.”

Today, America finds itself in crisis and a central villain (or hero, depending on your politics) is the Deep State.  Before condemning or celebrating the Deep State, citizens must answer important questions.  Does the Deep State possess its own will?  What is the Deep State beyond the political rhetoric? Is it a really an autonomous and powerful force in American politics?  Like a machine progressing toward artificial intelligence, at what point could the Deep State dream?  

Historian Richard Hofstadter argued in his 1948 work, The American Political Tradition, that “it is imperative in times of cultural crisis to gain fresh perspectives on the past.”  A fresh perspective is an essential first step on the path of uncovering the truth about the Deep State. Fortunately for us, Hofstadter can serve as guide.  Like Virgil in Dante’s Inferno, his analysis assists Millennials in uncovering the nature of power and control in our system so that we can evaluate the Deep State.

To support these goals, I divided this essay into three parts.  First, I distilled Hofstadter's work to three core principles arguably representative of the American political tradition prior to 1945.  Second, I applied Hofstadter's principles toward rethinking our common narrative of America's post-World War II history.  Last, I attempt to draw conclusions about the nature of the Deep State and whether it can dream its own dream. 

Part one: Hofstadter's Principles

Ordered Liberty

The first principle of the American political tradition is ordered liberty.  Although most governments value order, America's founders also desired liberty. Liberty and order are rarely correlated, so the Founders studied the Greeks, Romans, Judeo-Christian ethics, and British law to figure out why.  They discovered the secret for ordered liberty is basing government's constitution on a pessimistic view of human nature.  For the Founders, human nature was violent, selfish, and dangerous. As a result of that assessment, the Founders designed a system of rules to harness and channel human nature toward a positive goal: the pursuit of happiness.  The Constitution grants individuals the legal protections and boundaries to pursue their interests.  Government action limited itself to a minimal set of areas aimed at setting conditions for prosperity.  In this way, Hofstadter notes general agreement among historians that the “…Constitution itself is one of the world’s rare masterpieces of practical statecraft.”

Factionalism

A second principle of the American political tradition is the ever-presence of factionalism and partisan politics.  They are the hallmark of republican governance.  If ordered liberty required providing outlet for personal ambition in the American dream, maintaining fairness for everyone's pursuit of the American dream required constant calibrating, balancing, and realigning of partisan interests.  Battles raged between political parties representing labor and capital; democracy and republicanism; institutions and individuals; states and federalists; rural and urban; and farmers and manufacturers.  America’s leaders protected the American dream by balancing the interests of the factions. 

Interpreting factional interests is a main task for the American heroes and villains in Hofstadter’s essays.  When economic crisis, unruly labor, or big business tipped the balance toward one interest group or another, government intervened to restore balance.  Presidents such as Andrew Jackson and Theodore Roosevelt removed the “restrictions and privileges which had their origins in government” to ensure government’s neutral role as economic referee. In all cases, minimal levels of consensus was required prior to any major legislative action.

Foreign Policy Inseparable from Economic Policy

A third principle of the American political tradition is that foreign policy was inseparable from economic policy.  The first 27 presidents (from Washington to Taft) dealt with foreign policy mostly as an extension of domestic economic concerns.  Presidents Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Delano Roosevelt were the first presidents to deal with substantive foreign political concerns.  Each, despite enormous pressure to the contrary, mobilized a deeply isolationist population to war and built and maintained domestic support for foreign operations.    

Hofstadter's Principles Summarized

Hofstadter's three principles -- ordered liberty through economy, factionalism, and a foreign policy inseparable from economic policy -- were key features of American history prior to the Cold War.  However, Hofstadter became somewhat de-emphasized in the post-war period.  Whereas President Wilson failed to persuade America's political factions to support global engagement through the League of Nations at the end of the First World War, the end of the Second World War brought with it the existential menace of the Soviet Union.  American leaders coaxed their political factions to sign up for the United Nations and the Brenton-Woods Conference.  These policies were designed to build an international legal and political framework to deter conflict and counter the Soviet threat.  These policies required America's leaders to reevaluate their priorities and suppress factional interests in favor of an apolitical grand strategy.

Part 2: Hofstadter Applied to the Cold War

The Cold War pushed America—to borrow a phrase from Dante’s Inferno—into the “dark wilderness” of international politics.  America set aside its political tradition in favor of sustained global leadership.  Global leadership, a key component of America’s Cold War grand strategy of Containment, required a peace time security apparatus.  Therefore, the Congress passed and Harry Truman signed into law the National Security Act of 1947.  The Deep State was born.  

Many Americans viewed the Deep State as illegitimate.  First, the Deep State focused policy attention and financial resources away from growing the economy.  Second, the Deep State demanded apolitical grand strategy and bristled at factional politics.  Third, the Deep State pursued foreign policy objectives perceived as, at best, only indirectly advancing America’s economic interests.  At worst, those goals were viewed as being distinct from America's domestic agenda. 

Despite initial opposition, the Deep State grew throughout the 1950s.  As the Soviet threat waxed and President Eisenhower’s first inaugural address warned of communism’s danger, only eight years later Eisenhower's farewell address warned of the military-industrial complex (the Deep State).  It weathered the Vietnam War and unpopular activities such as those conducted under the FBI’s Counterintelligence Program, with minimal reform.  

Then, in late 1991, the Cold War ended.  Without the Soviet menace pressuring America's factions to submit to apolitical grand strategy,  Hofstadter’s principles began to resurface.  Politics again focused on prosperity.  President George H.W. Bush sought a “peace dividend.”  President Clinton’s 1992 campaign slogan was, “the economy, stupid.”  Factional politics, although always present, intensified.  The 1990s witnessed bitter disputes over the federal budget which shut down the government.  The lines between domestic and foreign policy blurred.  In his 1993 inaugural address, President Clinton argued in defense of continued global engagement by saying that “there is no longer a clear division between what is foreign and what is domestic.”  The next year, he signed the North American Free Trade Agreement.

Toward the close of the century, Hofstadter's principles returned in force.  In response, the Deep State took steps to stay relevant and perpetuate its existence.  Defense strategists expanded “spectrum of warfare” to stability operations and interventions in civil conflicts.  The Congress authorized and funded the use of national security capabilities to counter narcotics and foreign organized crime.  State National Guard units received federal funds to establish military ties with former Soviet republics.  Membership in the NATO military alliance expanded haphazardly.  Despite these actions, the Deep State was adrift strategically and looking everywhere for new missions.

The 9/11 Effect 

The attack on September 11, 2001, reversed the ascendancy of Hofstadter's principles.  Sunni Islamic terrorists (fifteen from Saudi Arabia, two from the United Arab Emirates, one from Egypt, and one from Lebanon) destroyed the World Trade Center, damaged the Pentagon, and murdered 2,996 innocent people in New York, Virginia, and Pennsylvania.  Hofstadter’s America—personified in the image of a domestically-focused President George W. Bush’s reading to school children—was again de-emphasized.  Factional politics gave way to bipartisan action against a second existential menace.  The American dream was subordinated to primal goals of security and order.  

The Congress declared global war on terror with almost no opposition.  It surged resources toward the Deep State, which added new layers of bureaucracy.  After ten years of strategic drift, the Deep State again found a requirement for apolitical grand strategy.  Only this time, apolitical grand strategy was confused with the tactic of counterterrorism.  When countering terror in Afghanistan proved insufficient to address the root cause of Islamist terror, America's leaders turned to the freedom agenda.  With overwhelming bipartisan support, the Congress authorized the Iraq war and aimed to bring democracy to the Middle East.

By 2003, the world’s most powerful and indispensable nation (at least according to the Deep State) began to pour out its blood and treasure.  However, the Freedom Agenda could not sustain domestic support.  National security issues became rapidly politicized.  In 2006, U.S. voters swept the minority party to power in the Congress.  In 2008, the American people elected a president who campaigned on a promise to end the wars.  After spending more than a trillion dollars and losing thousands of American lives and hundreds of thousands of Iraqi lives, America withdrew from Iraq in 2011. 

Hofstadter's principles of ordered liberty through economy, factionalism, and domestic-focused foreign policy can only be suppressed in response to a threat capable of sustaining congressional consensus. 

The brief period of bipartisan consensus after 9/11 fell away to a bitter (and normal) partisan environment in the mid-2000s.  The partisan vitriol erupted during the Obama Administration.  The Budget Control Act and sequestration reduced spending on the Deep State even though America was still “at war.”  President Obama summed up his foreign policy doctrine as avoiding “stupid shit” and focused on economic issues. America’s left-leaning political factions used their stewardship of all levers of power to implement a partisan domestic agenda.  After a series of highly uni-partisan domestic policy steps, including major social legislation that, for the first time U.S. history, passed without any minority party support, they set in motion a pendulum that would come crashing back.

Part 3: A Return of Hofstadter’s America 

The 2016 presidential election was a reckoning for those with vested interests in the Deep State.  Deep State voices sounded the alarm of retrenchment, isolationism, and abdication of American leadership.  The election reset American statecraft to Hofstadter's principles of economy, factionalism, and a U.S. foreign policy more closely linked to U.S. economic interests.  Although assumptions about America's role in the world are being reevaluated today, Hofstadter's principles are the underlying drivers.

As America comes to grips with the politics of our past, a small minority of Deep State technocrats are reacting—in many cases, by unlawfully releasing (leaking) information.  However, the traitorous actions of a few does not mean that Deep State is an autonomous entity.  Hofstadter would suggest the opposite. 

The main lesson of reflecting on Hofstadter's work is that power and control do not reside in the Deep State bureaucracy.  Power and control reside in the interests represented by the Congress, industry, the States, and the presidency.   

Dreams of the Deep State 

If the Deep State could dream, it would probably prefer to run itself like a business: efficiently, without compromise, and self-interestedly.  The Deep State would not waste money and it would more aggressively pursue fraud and abuse. It would seek to streamline business practices: for example, producing its military equipment and capabilities in one location instead of spreading the money around to multiple congressional districts. 

If the Deep State could dream, it would probably dream about eliminating excess organizations that serve only to reduce efficiency and increase employee frustration.  In 2017, the Deep State consists of : (1) an intelligence community with seventeen participating members; (2) a department of defense compromised of three military departments, five military services (including now the Chief of the National Guard Bureau), 54 state and territory national guard forces, a joint staff, nine combatant commands, and dozens of defense agencies and field activities; (3) a department of homeland security leading twenty-two separate agencies; and (4) the Department of Justice with multiple federal law enforcement agencies.  This is not a complete list. 

Even within the defense establishment, there is significant redundancy.  The Deep State would probably dream that it would never again need to purchase three variants of airplanes (such as the Joint Strike Fighter).  The Deep State would not permit America to field three different air forces in the same military (Navy, Marines, and the Air Force) or four different cyber forces.  The Deep State would question why the U.S. Army fields nearly as many aircraft as the Air Force and more aircraft than the Navy and Marine Corps.  It would ask why the U.S. Army fields large ships like the Navy. 

Streamlining these organizations requires a realignment of seventy years of entrenched interests. This is no small task.  However, in today's era, Millennials should begin demanding such accountability in their leaders.  We must never forget that the purpose of American statecraft is the maintenance of ordered liberty for its citizens to pursue their goals and dreams.  To serve this purpose, leaders must balance factional politics and interests and, absent an existential threat, keep foreign policy focused on serving economic policy.  Most importantly, we must understand that, by design, our political tradition precludes running government like a business.  Millennials should take note that if the government could operate like a business, it would require a form of government unrecognizable in America. 

Conclusion 

At the end of Dante's Inferno, Virgil ushers Dante to the center of Hell.  There, Dante finds the multi-headed Devil chewing on history’s most infamous traitors (Judas and Julius Caesar's murders).  If Hofstadter were escorting we citizens to the center of Hell, the Devil would not be chewing on anyone yet.  Instead, he would be holding a mirror.  In that mirror, we would see our reflection and an inscription that reads: “A Republic, If You Can Keep It.” 

The Coming Crisis of Governance and How Millennials Should Respond

Obamacare appears poised to die just as it was born: without a single minority party vote. Before Republicans respond in kind for the uni-partisan action of President Obama’s first term, they should consider the lesson that Democrats just learned from the 2016 election cycle. Uni-partisanism sets in motion a political pendulum that eventually comes crashing back.

America’s lurching between partisan policies is destabilizing. The bitterness engendered by uni-partisanism is pushing open the traditional borders of the American political spectrum.  Instead of bounding politics by the ideological left and right limits established by Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson, fringe groups are now entering the mainstream policy debate.

The acceptance of extremism in mainstream politics is putting at risk the marriage of necessity between center-left and center-right. Neither side can now afford to be seen compromising with the other. As the parties become increasingly estranged, they are undermining their citizens’ faith in the Republic.   

The largest loss of faith in government is among Millennials, who now share an equal size of the electorate with Baby Boomers. According to Bloomberg, a “quarter of [Millennials] consider a democratic political system a "bad" or "very bad" way to run the country.” Left unchecked, these data portend a coming crisis of governance.

To help restore Millennial confidence in government, the Baby Boomers must govern inclusively. With the exception of Generation X Speaker of the House Paul Ryan, the Baby Boomers have absolute control over policymaking in Washington. Unfortunately, there is yet little reason to think that the Boomers can or will govern inclusively.

The Baby Boomers may be too close to the problem to respond effectively. As they said, elections have consequences. Apparently, those consequences include ignoring half of American voters represented by the minority party.  Such attitudes towards governance serve only to shove the pendulum in the opposite direction. If the unilateral approach to policymaking continues for much longer, the otherwise centrist-oriented American polity should shudder to think about what the next few election cycles could bring.

If their parents’ generation is unwilling or unable to govern inclusively, Millennials should consider entering the arena for the 2018 mid-term elections. Millennials are not exercising the political power afforded to them by their numbers.  Right now, the Boomers outnumber them on Capitol Hill by a ratio of 50 to 1. To change the system, they must do more than participate indirectly. 

Unfortunately, Millennials are behind in their political education. Instead of inheriting a world of limitless opportunity to study at inexpensive universities, Millennials inherited the Great Recession and a collapsing international order.  As a result, many Millennials are struggling with first-order challenges such as finding a job, paying off student debt, and moving out of their parents’ house. 

Despite these systemic disadvantages, Millennials should expect their detractors to continue ridiculing their entire generation.   They will ask how the “Me Generation” can be expected to serve to a cause bigger than they even though Millennials fought America’s longest wars. Millennials should also expect some good-natured teasing about participation trophies, to which they should reply that children do not buy themselves trophies—their parents do.

If Millennials could take one step intellectually to prepare for their entry into politics, they should pursue a close study of western civilization. Western civilization is no longer emphasized in the Baby Boomer-dominated educational system.  Many Americans worship the Founding Fathers in a hollow way, and actually lack understanding of American political philosophy.  Instead of those false and idealized view of history, Millennials should learn about the intellectual lineage that produced their republic. It is a lineage that can be traced from Jerusalem, to ancient Athens and Rome, to London, and—finally—to Philadelphia.  

As part of their study of western civilization, Millennials should learn anew something that many Americans appear to have forgotten. The American experiment in liberty is as uniquely precious as it is fragile. A few swings of an errant political pendulum can allow extremism to destabilize the entire system.

Amidst the cacophony of the partisan noise and crashing pendulums, Millennials must quiet their minds and learn urgently the lessons of western civilization and American political philosophy. For if events go astray in the next few election cycles, chances are it will be they organizing the next Constitutional Convention.   

Rejoinder on Civic Engagement: What Happens When Foreign Powers Intervene?

On January 2, I published an essay on a less well known aspect of political discourse and civic engagement. What happens when foreign powers intervene in U.S. politics?

Excerpt from War on the Rocks is below. 

Laying Bare the Enemy's Aims: Defending Public Opinion in the 21st Century

America’s strategic center of gravity is public opinion, so why is it left undefended against foreign influence? As pressure builds in Congress to investigate Russia’s meddling in presidential politics, lawmakers must look to arm a new generation of information warriors with Silicon Valley tech and Cold War political acumen. Edward Bernays, the father of American advertising, believed that the essence of democratic society is the engineering of consent.  If America wants the engineering of consent to be an exclusively homegrown activity, then Congress needs to establish a new agency with the mission to confront, expose, and challenge unlawful foreign influence both at home and abroad.

The Seven Characters of Social Media Politics

Conventional wisdom says to avoid public discussion of politics, sports, and religion, especially at bars—unless you enjoy bar fights.  Everything posted online is public information, but social media feeds are rife with political content. 

Many people use social media to assert the absolute rightness of a position or agitate friends and families on political matters.  In some cases, the political posts elicit an exchange of comments, which can devolve into the online version of a bar fight.  Trading blows on Facebook over politics can result in a loss of friendships, both online and in the real world.

Reasonable people would agree that social media political posts are not a just cause for ending a relationship.  As the online generation, Millennials are also responsible for adapting these new tools to create productive dialogue.  So in the spirit of preserving relationships—and some level of genuine political discourse—here are the seven emerging archetypes of people posting about politics on social media so you know who to look out for and avoid becoming.
 
The Waylon Smithers. Waylon Smithers is the loyal and sycophantic aide to the primary antagonist Mr. Burns of the Simpsons.  Smithers loves Mr. Burns.  He is the consummate "yes man."  On social media, Smithers is easy to identify by his political posts.  Turn on any cable news channel, listen to the various pundits, and then watch your social media feed for regurgitation.  What Smithers lacks in critical thinking skills he compensates for by enthusiastically reposting partisan media articles.  If two Smithers from opposing political teams engage in comment battle on Facebook, you might as well turn off your computer for at least 24 hours.  If you do not, you risk the collateral damage of bold text and exclamation points.  Besides, the conversation won’t be going anywhere new.

The Don Quixote.  Don Quixote read books about chivalry, obsessed over knighthood, and set off on a delusional adventure to change the world and win the love of an imaginary woman.  The Don Quixote of social media also wants to change the world, but instead of changing the world, he changes his Facebook profile picture.  He uses lots of #hashtags to tilt at those windmills.  He even uploads videos of himself doing inexplicable activities of no consequence to the cause he professes to support.  True, he is raising your awareness, along with your blood pressure.  But what is the relationship between his hashtagging and the outcomes in the real world?  If you see someone proliferating posts to achieve a sense of purpose and political impact—with little indication of any real world follow up— then maybe you've got a delusional Don Quixote.

The Meg Griffin. In the Fox show Family Guy, Meg Griffin is the oldest child of Peter and Louis Griffin.  She is despised by other characters.  No matter what Meg does, she is just wrong and out of touch with reality.  On social media, Meg Griffin posts about the dangers of allowing extraterrestrials to donate to political campaigns in the United States.  Her posts cite questionable sources alleging that smoking marijuana increases intellectual capacity and calls upon the Congress to decriminalize, for the children's sake.  She posts about how Trump is either a divine figure who will save the world or a demon who will end it.  Either way, when Meg's posts show up in your feed, keep scrolling.  

The Holden Caulfield.  Whiny. Pampered. Rebellious without a cause.  The protagonist and narrator of J.D. Salinger's the Catcher in the Rye is perhaps the most annoying character in literature.  Holden is a true intellectual, but everyone else is phony.  On social media, Holden thinks posting memes from libertarian Facebook pages makes him brooding and deep.  He posts esoteric articles and asks cryptic questions. He is both naïve of the mechanics of politics and resentful of the "establishment."  He responds to others' posts with pages and pages of valiantly intelligent, mostly irrelevant text.  Worst of all, he complains.  Holden may be a compelling literary figure, but you definitely do not want to hang out with him.

The Negan.  Negan is the new villain in AMC’s the Walking Dead. He says and does whatever he wants.  He is in charge and will use violence to control you.  On Facebook, the Negans post highly inappropriate and offensive content.  You wonder if your safety is at risk if you disagree.  He wants you and his 83 other Facebook friends to understand that political correctness is real in America and he will not be muzzled.  He makes you cringe and realize he validates Meg Griffin's fears.  You sometimes wonder if the FBI is monitoring him.
 
The Captain Ahab.  Captain Ahab was a monomaniacal whale-hunter whose single-minded obsession led to his death.  On Facebook, the Captain Ahabs are easy to recognize.  NASA might have discovered life on Mars, but Ahab is posting about his white wale.  No matter how one uses facts and reasoning to demonstrate Ahab's folly, he cannot entertain new information.  He cannot see the bigger picture.  He is obsessed with his political issue and that's all there is to him.  You ignore him and move on.

The Most Interesting Man in the World.  "I don't always post about politics, but when I do, I post a 25,000 word prattling manifesto that I’ve contemplated for days."  Is he a genius? Or is he a hermit with a manifesto?  You can't be sure because you physically could not last beyond page 4.  You regretted clicking the “see more” expansion window.  How did you think that because he never posts about politics, he would emanate political profundity? Thanks, interesting man, and we appreciate your joining the conversation.  You should not always post, but when you do, maybe spend more time contemplating and offer something of value.

There you have it.  The seven archetypes of political posters on social media.  Sadly, these characters are proliferating.  So how do we move ahead?   

It is surprising that meaningful political dialogue on social media is not occurring.  Social media exposes people to new ideas and creates an opportunity for dialogue among people who do not share geography, political beliefs, or biographical traits.  When coupled with instant access to the amassed knowledge of humankind (aka Google) for fact-checking, how could social media not be improving empathy, increasing openness to new ideas, and creating a common appreciation of key challenges and potential solutions?  

What's worse is that social media may be having the opposite effect.  As Tobias Rose-Stockwell argues, technology is reducing the ability to feel empathy toward other people and their views.  This is significant. 

What explains social media's failure to improve political dialogue?  There must be something specific about social media and its relationship to political discourse that explains the emergence of these archetypes.  Perhaps the structure of social media compels us to care more about image curation than substantive contributions.  Maybe people today are more inclined to use politics as a means to validate how they feel with like-minded people rather than an area for meaningful debate with opposing views. 

What is clear is that a lack of genuine cross-partisan dialogue encourages the adoption of an unhelpful and potentially dangerous idea that political rivals are irreconcilable enemies.  In the aftermath of elections, common emotions on social media have included elation, gloating, indignation, confusion, surprise, anger, and—perhaps most disconcertingly-- genuine fear.
 
If Millennials seek to maximize the potential of social media as a platform to increase political dialogue and understanding, maybe we can set the example with our political posts.  In the real world, we can reach out to people with whom we disagree with the objective of improving our understanding of issues.  We should not be Pollyannaish, but at least for our own benefit, we can learn something through an earnest approach toward dialogue.

History may have also have lessons in the use of media for political purposes.  In order for the United States to adopt the Constitution as law, the States had to ratify it.  Two camps emerged: the Federalists, led by Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, and James Madison; and the anti-Federalists, led by Patrick Henry, John Williams, George Clinton, and Robert Yates (among others).  In an effort to persuade citizens of the merits of their view, both camps published a series of essays in newspapers.  Dubbed the "Federalist papers" and "anti-Federalist" papers, these essays resulted in the both the ratification of the Constitution and inclusion of a key concession in the Bill of the Rights.

The authors of the federalist papers and anti-federalist papers thought deeply—not only about their positions, but also about those of their opponents.  They acknowledged the complexity of the issue and the potential merits in their rhetorical opponent's approach.  The authors used emotion and pushed buttons like most politicians, but they had respect for the reader's intelligence. They made reasoned arguments and directly engaged the ideas of the other side, unlike the archetypes above.

If you were to take an action as a result of this article, consider engaging someone with whom you disagree and learn one new perspective.  As you do, please keep in mind that having a productive dialogue means realizing that (mostly) the other side is not dumb. 

If you can think of other archetypes of the social media political poster or have a theory on why social media is not better suited to discourse, please post in the comments below.  If you would like to write a piece for the blog on this or any other civic-related topic, please say so!

A future post will explore lessons for social media posting from the process of ratifying the U.S. Constitution in a piece called "What Would Publius Post."