Martin Gilens, professor of politics at Princeton University and a member of the executive committee of the Center for the Study of Democratic Politics, discussed his new book as part of the Wilson School’s “Talk of 2012: The Upcoming Presidential Election” thematic lecture series. The discussion was co-sponsored by the Center for the Study of Democratic Politics and the Department of Politics.
so in the mid-1960s in myquantitative analysiswas a period of very low associationbetween public preferences and policyoutcomes the opposite set of politicalconditions and the strongest period ofassociation between public preferencesand policy outcomes was much to my greatsurprise during the early years of thegeorge w bush first term and when i didthat analysis and saw that not onlywhere the policy is adopted in 2001 and2002 consistent with what affluentAmericans wanted but we’re also the mostconsistent with what the middle classand the poor wanted from any period ofin my data set it was fairly certainthere must be some sort of error therein coding or something must have gonewrong so like you know a good socialscientist that Ike scoured the data tosee like where this error had emergedbut the fact of the matter is that therewas no error there and the policies thatwere adopted during those early Bushyears were in fact quite popular acrossthe income spectrum so so let me remindyou that you know Bush ran in 2000 as acompassionate conservative right hetalked about his bipartisan work withTexas Legislature and and so on and youknow I think a lot of people on the Leftkind of dismissed that as kind of acynical posturing but the truth is thatwhen Bush came into office you knowafter a very close election and afterhaving lost the popular vote the themost prominent policies that wereadopted were broadly supported centristpolicies in some cases bipartisanpolicies adopted that he worked withDemocratic legislators so I’m thinkingof things like the Medicare drug benefita long-standing Democratic Partypriority No Child Left Behind educationreforms which whatever you may think ofthem now was a bipartisanpolicy that you know senator Kennedyworked with the administration on Bush’sfaith-based initiative very popularacross income levels his compromise onstem-cell funding which contrary towidespread views actually increased thelike the range of stem cells that wereeligible for federal funding and evenhis tax cuts which clearly provided mostof the benefits in terms of dollars tothe most well-off Americans werestrongly supported across the incomespectrum so so a lot of what happenedthen was very consistent with what thepublic wanted including what the middleclass and the poor wanted but it’s notbecause of any sort of particularcommitment on the part of Bush or hisadministration to you know serving asadvocates for the poor but it waspolitical circumstances so Congress in2001 was more closely divided than ithad been at any time in half a centuryright you may remember when Bush cameinto office the Senate was split 50-50with the vice president serving as adeciding vote the Republicans had a veryslim majority in the house they losteven that sort of you know deciding votemajority in the Senate after JimJeffords abandoned at the RepublicanParty a couple months into the Bush’sfirst term so it was a very closelydivided Congress with control being upfor grabs at the next election right andthis is the opposite of what we saw inthe mid-1960s and this these two periodsrepresent a consistent pattern within mydata that when control of government isdivided and uncertain you get policyoutcomes that more strongly reflect thePreferences of the public and moreequally reflect the Preferences of lowand high-income Americans and when oneparty has dominant control then you seeresponsiveness to any groupthe public decline and in fact that’sexactly what happened when theRepublicans increased their control ofCongress so if you compare thepreference policy Association in thefirst two years of Bush’s first termwith the first two years of Bush’ssecond term right when Republicans forthe first time in half a century hadunified control of the nationalgovernment and strong majorities fairlystrong majorities in Congress not likethe 1960s but but relative to recentyears then what you saw is that theresponsiveness to the public plummetednow I should mention if you areconcerned that 9/11 and the war onterror and the wars in Afghanistan andIraq are responsible for theserelationships I was concerned about thattoo I redid these analyses afterexcluding all the policy questionshaving to do with defense and terrorismand in the wars and so on and when yousee the same pattern so that is some ofwhat was popular about the early yearsof Bush’s first term was things like thewar on terror and some of what was lesspopular in Bush’s later years but thepatterns remain the same even if we’reonly looking at domestic policy andexcluding things like on terror okay soso the point here is that politicalconditions right make a difference andthat’s one of the perhaps few sort ofhopeful findings from what for peopleconcerned about sort of normativedemocratic concerns is in general andnot particularly hopeful or optimistic aresearch project but but control ofgovernment does matter and that meansparties can be constrained to pursuepolicies that are more consistent withwhat the public wants under the rightcircumstances so there’s there’s a rayof hope there you might expect if thereif that political circumstances to saythe tenuous nature of government controlmakes a difference well so might someother ..
A surge of public activism by former CIA personnel is one of the most unexpected developments of the Trump era
Two former CIA officers — both Democrats, both women, both liberal — were elected to Congress on November 6. Abigail Spanberger, former operations officer, was elected in Virginia’s 7th District. Elissa Slotkin, former analyst, won in Michigan’s 8th District. Both Spanberger and Slotkin incorporated their intelligence experience into their center-left platforms. Their victories tripled the number of CIA “formers” in Congress.
At the halfway point in Trump’s first term, these formers see themselves as a bulwark of an endangered democracy. The president and his supporters see a cabal of “deep state” radicals out to overturn the will of the people. With the appointment of Matthew Whitaker, an unqualified political operative, as Attorney General, Brennan said a “constitutional crisis” is fast approaching. The clash between a willfully ignorant commander in chief and a politicized intelligence community seems sure to deepen.
..I think the blatant disregard for the threat of foreign influence in our election and the demonization of the Intelligence Community was a turning point for a lot of us,” former branch chief Cindy Otis told me in an email. “. . . Critics can call me ‘The Deep State,’ but I joined the CIA under George W. Bush and the vast majority of people at CIA lean conservative on foreign policy/natsec [national security] issues.”
.. in the 1980s, former director Bush and a host of senior agency operatives joined the Iran-Contra conspiracy. They sought to subvert the Democratic majority in Congress that had banned covert intervention in Central America. The agency’s rank and file did not object. Indeed, many applauded when President Bush pardoned four CIA officials who had been indicted in the scandal.
..After the 9/11 attacks, the consensus in Langley that torture was a permissible, effective and necessary counterterrorism technique no doubt struck many intelligence officers as apolitical common sense. But, of course, adopting “extreme interrogation tactics” was a deeply political decision that President Bush embraced, and President Obama repudiated. The agency deferred to both commanders in chief... The problem with Trump in the eyes of these CIA formers is almost pre-political. The president’s policy decisions matter less than his contempt for intelligence and the system that collects it... When we see things that are blatantly wrong, and the president is responsible, it is fair to speak out,” Bakos said in an interview. “If you’re silent, you’re part of the problem.”
.. Former personnel know better than anyone that the CIA has a license to kill. The agency can spy, capture, bomb and assassinate. It can overthrow governments, foster (or smash) political movements, even re-organize entire societies, according to the inclinations of the president and his advisers.CIA operatives could trust both neoconservative George W. Bush and internationalist Barack Obama with that arsenal because they believed, whatever their politics, both presidents were rational actors. With Trump, they can have no such confidence.
Trump’s contempt for the intelligence profession, weaponized in his “deep state” conspiracy theories, has agency personnel feeling professionally vulnerable, perhaps for the first time. An irrational chief executive has shattered their apolitical pretensions and forced them to re-examine what their core beliefs require.
.. Larry Pfeiffer, former chief of staff to Hayden, told me, “Until now I’ve been mostly a Republican voter at the national level because Republicans shared my views on national security. For a lot of people inside the national security community, that is not necessarily the case anymore. The Republican Party under Trump has abandoned people like us.”
.. When Pfeiffer told me, “Who knows? I might have to vote for Elizabeth Warren, or Bernie Sanders in 2020,” he sounded amazed by the possibility but not averse to it. Two years of Trump can do that to a former spy.
The point is not that the CIA is getting more liberal, says John Prados, author of “The Ghosts of Langley,” a history of the agency. Rather, the election results show that the voting bloc that supports the president now skews even more to the hard right. “The migration of [the] political spectrum to the right makes the agency look more liberal than it is,” he said in an interview.
.. “I find it sad — and maybe a few other adjectives — that Brennan now gets a pass for some of [the] things he did as director, just because he’s combatting Trump,” Prados said.
.. “If Trump is going to carry out a secret war against Iran as he seems to want to do, who is our ally?” Prados asked. “Mossad [the Israeli intelligence service]? Who can work with Mossad? The CIA. If that is Trump’s Middle East agenda, the interests of current CIA people and the formers may diverge.”
.. “Trump is not only relying on lies and falsehoods in his public statements, but I have to believe he is pushing back on the realities that are brought to him. Imagine Gina Haspel goes to the White House with a briefer to talk about the latest intel on — fill in the blank:
- North Korea’s missile program.
- What China is doing to supplant America in Asia.
- Where Europe wants to go with NATO.
Does the president listen or care? Or even understand? We’re not in crisis on any one issue, but can we really say the government is functioning?”
.. Harrington expects the mistrust between the president and the intelligence community to grow in the next two years.
“No director of any federal agency can turn away the inquiries of the Democratic House,” Harrington said. “CIA people have to deal head on with the consequences of a president who is fundamentally not dealing with reality.”
If there’s one thing to be learned from talking to former CIA personnel, it’s the sense that the CIA system — powerful, stealthy, and dangerous — is blinking red about the latest news of an authoritarian leader in an unstable nation.