Foundational untruths about the State Department

The White House should read St. Augustine's "On Lying"

Critiques of the current president’s communication strategy often feature some version of Nazi ideologue Joseph Goebbels’s statement that “a lie once told remains a law, but a lie told a thousand times becomes the truth.” Untruths that have been repeated long enough can become the unexamined and unquestioned foundations for still more lies, or statements of policy. Such “foundational untruths” are very visible, for example, in the Administration’s explanations for its purge of public servants who believe in and live up to their oaths to serve the Constitution. (The specific commitment in my now long-ago oath as a Foreign Service officer was to: “support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic.” It was not an oath to Ronald Reagan.)

The President’s February 12 executive order “One Voice for America’s Foreign Relations” relies on precisely such foundational untruths. It is worthwhile, in fact, to examine the inherent communication tactics and clearly label what is what. At its most superficial level, the executive order lays out what is described as an “effective and efficient means for ensuring that officers and employees faithfully implement the President’s policies.” No problem with that, one might say.

But it is important to realize that the executive order is “solving” a non-existent problem. I never met a Foreign Service officer (or a Civil Service employee of the State Department) who did not understand that their boss was the President of the United States. There are formal and informal mechanisms whereby one can criticize, within the institution, though not publicly, specific policies, pointing out weaknesses and suggesting alternative approaches. As desk officer for Yugoslavia in 1989-90, I loyally implemented policies I personally disagreed with, receiving high-level attention to, if not agreement with, my dissent. Those who cannot in good faith implement policies established by our country’s elected leaders understand that resignation is the correct course of action, and it does happen.

The problem with the executive order, however, is how it describes the problem it is supposedly intended to solve. It treats as undisputed foundational facts a series of notions that have no basis in truth. For example, the statement in Section 1 that, to implement the President’s foreign policy, the Secretary of State “must maintain an exceptional workforce of patriots” casts doubt, I believe, on the quality and patriotism of current State Department employees. If there is a basis in fact for such innuendo, I want to see it.

Particularly disturbing to me was the instruction in Section 5 (a) to the Secretary of State to “reform the Foreign Service and the administration of foreign relations to ensure faithful and effective implementation of the President’s foreign policy agenda.” The implication is clear. The Foreign Service is not faithfully and effectively implementing the responsibilities they have sworn to carry out. The point is even reiterated in largely identical language in Section 5(b). Again, this cannot be allowed to fly by as an unexamined and unquestionable postulate. Where is the basis in fact for this opinion? I need to see it. (I also dislike the language that seems not to extend beyond loyalty to the agenda of the current president, but perhaps I’m being oversensitive…)

I doubt that Secretary Rubio is relishing the prospect of revising and replacing the voluminous Foreign Affairs Manual and other handbooks, procedures, and guidance. Reductions in the State Department workforce, which are ongoing, won’t make this massive task any easier. But it’s implied these documents may not be consistent with applicable law. (The Foreign Affairs Manual is in fact a guide to applicable law, but let’s not let facts get in the way.)

St. Augustine of Hippo (354-430 AD) saw lying as a huge problem in his day and proposed a typology of lies. As a theologian, he believed that lies in religious teaching were the worst. But immediately below those came the lies that harm others and help no one. Presumably the President believes the recent executive order helps him in some way, although I suspect Augustine’s judgment in this case would be harsh. The lies here certainly are harmful to people whom we have no reason to believe failed to fulfill their oaths honorably and effectively. It is utterly reprehensible.