Sondland learned enough to protect himself

previously published in the Terre Haute Tribune-Star, 24 November 2019

So far, Ambassador Gordon Sondland has been my favorite witness. Not because he connects President Trump to the questionable (impeachable?) doings with Ukraine. Because he’s an example of a citizen completely over his head in the role he is playing. In contrast to the measured, “process” oriented Foreign Service Officers, National Security Council Staffers, and other career Ambassadors, who live in a world, pardon this, that is “foreign” to most of us. The language, the “process” (which is highly bureaucratic and we should admire them for being able to make anything work with it), the sifting and careful blending of “U.S. interests,” “U.S. foreign policy,” with domestic policy and politics, and regular upheaval (new administrations at least every eight years), these folks exist in a world that few of us can relate. They are also quick learners because their assignments change and sometimes change significantly.

We can relate to Ambassador Sondland, however. Not as a mega donor, fundraiser, rich guy, who almost slipped answering a question as he clarified that he donated $1 million to the President’s inauguration in hopes of … (I thought he was going to say receiving an ambassadorship in return) tickets (to the inauguration). He’s relatable as someone obviously over his head. All of us have felt over our head from time to time; most of us have egos strong enough to admit it. Ambassador Sondland all but did admit it (he is smart enough to realize in that setting, he better not do that).

This guy is an amateur. He should make us appreciate, that much more, the career folks who are measured, take copious notes of conversations, sincerely believe they are serving “higher interests,” have to keep secrets, and can never really be “off duty.”

In response to questions, late in his testimony, Ambassador Sondland was read a Fox News article (apparently the Congresswoman figured that he only would pay attention to Fox News) but Ambassador Sondland didn’t know anything about it. Well, what do you know, he’s like most Americans who don’t pay attention to the skullduggery of politics (on a daily basis). At times during Ambassador Sondland’s testimony I felt I knew more about what was going on than he!

What did Ambassador Sondland think being an ambassador would be like? I’ve met a couple of U.S. ambassadors, doing their ambassador thing. They were gracious, witty, likable, personable, and had some “gravitas.” Gordon Sondland seems like that. I think that he thought being an ambassador would be a couple of years doing meet and greets, setting up conversations between people, brokering “deals” between the U.S. and (in his case) the EU, making innocuous speeches before or after sumptuous lunches, speaking for the President, and representing the United States. National Security? What’s that? U.S. interests? Which ones?

He seemed unable to recall a lot of things. Was that evasiveness? Perhaps, but I don’t t think so. I think he doesn’t remember because so much of what he has been engaged in, he had no frame of reference, no understanding of the “language,” culture, and processes of Foreign Service and National Security. It’s like being among a group of people speaking a language you don’t understand, except from that year of it you took in high school. You could remember perhaps being there but nothing of substance. Oh, you could remember, “por favor,” “caliente,” and “uno dos tres,” but nothing else. This is the world Ambassador Sondland has been living, slowly picking it up, but at the same time, probably not that interested in it.

Before Ambassador Sondland testified and before he amended his original closed door testimony, I thought he was the “patsy,” the “useful dope” who could be blamed for misunderstanding (“Gordon, what the f*** hell were you thinking? That would be wrong, probably illegal.”) Ambassador Sondland is a skilled fundraiser (“we are among friends”) he is not a politician, wary, careful, distrustful of “them” (partisan), but I think he figured enough out to protect himself (can you blame him?) by telling what he does know (and remembers). I agree with Chris Wallace’s take on Ambassador Sondland that he is trying to ”protect himself more than anyone else.”

Yes, he is. No more so than if Rudy Giuliani, Secretary of State Pompeo, Energy Secretary Perry, Vice President Pence or President Trump would if they sat down and “swore to tell the truth” as Ambassador Sondland did. I think he figured things out, just enough, at the right time.

Thomas L. Steiger is a professor of sociology and director of the Center for Student Research and Creativity at Indiana State University. Email: thomas.steiger@indstate.edu.

Outing whistleblower: punishment, vilification

(previously published in the Terre Haute Tribune Star, 11/17/19)
Hurtling down I-70 I was half listening to the news and thinking about why President Trump and right-wing news and commentary operations are so fixated on outing “the whistleblower.” At this point, given the corroborating evidence, it would not make any difference. Somewhere around mile marker 57 it hit me: it’s about payback, about intimidation, and a warped sense of what it means to “be strong.”

I began to formulate this essay and then this hits my screen: a tweet from Bill Kristol (a New York Times conservative columnist): “I’m struck by Trumpworld’s obsession with the whistleblower. Exposing him wouldn’t help Trump’s case a bit. But it’s clear that outing him would be really satisfying psychologically to Trumpsters. One forgets how central to Trumpism are petty vindictiveness and cowardly bullying.”

We can make our own digs at others, which seems to be how so much of our national dialogue has become, which, by the way, is a win for those who support this kind of response to “the whistleblower.” I see it as part of one of the most misunderstood aspects of President Trumps campaign to “make America great again.”

“Drain the swamp.” Can’t dispute the marketing appeal of that. Both “sides” use it but it means something very different to each “side.” If you understand “drain the swamp,” as I do, to rout out corruption, to end the open bribery of our elected officials through the vast flows of money to campaigns, deliberate creation of conflicts of interest by placing people in charge of oversight who have a personal interest in the industries they are overseeing, stuff like that, then you misunderstand what drain the swamp means for President Trump and his supporters.

Drain the swamp is about what has also become known as the “deep state.” In short, the swamp is the people who have made civil service (and the military) their life’s work. These are not elected officials, but people with the “technical” skills and experience to carry out the business of the United States government. These are the career foreign service officers, career public health officials, all those lawyers who work for the justice department and federal judges. It also includes the press who cover the doings of our politicians.

If you don’t understand this, then consider after the overthrow of Saddam Hussein, the de-Ba’athefication of the government and what that lead to. It lead to a dearth of knowledge about how to make the government work. And that is what we are seeing right now with President Trump. Look at Rex Tillerson’s gutting of the State Department. The moving of the research and policy analysis operations of the Agriculture Department out of Washington to remote agricultural areas is how the Administration is getting policy experts to quit. Even career military are suspect, otherwise the torrent of hate toward Lt. Col. Vindman would not have happened. And the preference for ideological conformity over experience, “judicial temperament,” and achievement in selecting federal judges is also part of “draining the swamp.” Labeling press coverage that is viewed by President Trump and his supporters as negative is “fake news” even if it’s true.

The whistleblower is a career person in either the intelligence area, foreign service, and/or national security. In short, s/he makes their living serving the government of the United States. They serve the United States, not narrowly the individuals temporarily in power. This is the swamp that President Trump and his supporters are trying to drain, not the swamp of corruption, conflicts of interest, cronyism, and nepotism.

This is also why the whistleblower’s identity is so important to reveal. The vilification has already occurred and then, if identified, the whistleblower will be punished, not officially, but through anonymous threats, dirty tricks, and so forth. The whistleblower’s service will be twisted in such a way as to further the narrative that the “swamp” needs draining and enough people will not object. This will also serve to undermine “protections” for those in honorable service to the country rather than in service to any temporary tyrant.

Ultimately, “draining the swamp” for President Trump and his supporters, is about draining all sources of opposition to whatever President Trump and his supporters want. As long as there are those who will object, or even tell the truth if the truth shows President Trump and his supporters in a bad light, then the swamp needs draining.

Thomas L. Steiger is a professor of sociology and director of the Center for Student Research and Creativity at Indiana State University. Email: thomas.steiger@indstate.edu.