Be Not Complicit

Senator Flake’s prepared comments announcing his resignation from the Senate (from CNN):

Mr. President, I rise today to address a matter that has been much on my mind, at a moment when it seems that our democracy is more defined by our discord and our dysfunction than it is by our values and our principles. Let me begin by noting a somewhat obvious point that these offices that we hold are not ours to hold indefinitely. We are not here simply to mark time. Sustained incumbency is certainly not the point of seeking office. And there are times when we must risk our careers in favor of our principles.

Now is such a time.

It must also be said that I rise today with no small measure of regret. Regret, because of the state of our disunion, regret because of the disrepair and destructiveness of our politics, regret because of the indecency of our discourse, regret because of the coarseness of our leadership, regret for the compromise of our moral authority, and by our — all of our — complicity in this alarming and dangerous state of affairs. It is time for our complicity and our accommodation of the unacceptable to end.

In this century, a new phrase has entered the language to describe the accommodation of a new and undesirable order — that phrase being “the new normal.” But we must never adjust to the present coarseness of our national dialogue — with the tone set at the top.

We must never regard as “normal” the regular and casual undermining of our democratic norms and ideals. We must never meekly accept the daily sundering of our country – the personal attacks, the threats against principles, freedoms, and institutions, the flagrant disregard for truth or decency, the reckless provocations, most often for the pettiest and most personal reasons, reasons having nothing whatsoever to do with the fortunes of the people that we have all been elected to serve.

None of these appalling features of our current politics should ever be regarded as normal. We must never allow ourselves to lapse into thinking that this is just the way things are now. If we simply become inured to this condition, thinking that this is just politics as usual, then heaven help us. Without fear of the consequences, and without consideration of the rules of what is politically safe or palatable, we must stop pretending that the degradation of our politics and the conduct of some in our executive branch are normal. They are not normal.
Reckless, outrageous, and undignified behavior has become excused and countenanced as “telling it like it is,” when it is actually just reckless, outrageous, and undignified.

And when such behavior emanates from the top of our government, it is something else: It is dangerous to a democracy. Such behavior does not project strength — because our strength comes from our values. It instead projects a corruption of the spirit, and weakness.

It is often said that children are watching. Well, they are. And what are we going to do about that? When the next generation asks us, Why didn’t you do something? Why didn’t you speak up? — what are we going to say?

Mr. President, I rise today to say: Enough. We must dedicate ourselves to making sure that the anomalous never becomes normal. With respect and humility, I must say that we have fooled ourselves for long enough that a pivot to governing is right around the corner, a return to civility and stability right behind it. We know better than that. By now, we all know better than that.

Here, today, I stand to say that we would better serve the country and better fulfill our obligations under the constitution by adhering to our Article 1 “old normal” — Mr. Madison’s doctrine of the separation of powers. This genius innovation which affirms Madison’s status as a true visionary and for which Madison argued in Federalist 51 — held that the equal branches of our government would balance and counteract each other when necessary. “Ambition counteracts ambition,” he wrote.

But what happens if ambition fails to counteract ambition? What happens if stability fails to assert itself in the face of chaos and instability? If decency fails to call out indecency? Were the shoe on the other foot, would we Republicans meekly accept such behavior on display from dominant Democrats? Of course not, and we would be wrong if we did.

When we remain silent and fail to act when we know that that silence and inaction is the wrong thing to do — because of political considerations, because we might make enemies, because we might alienate the base, because we might provoke a primary challenge, because ad infinitum, ad nauseum — when we succumb to those considerations in spite of what should be greater considerations and imperatives in defense of the institutions of our liberty, then we dishonor our principles and forsake our obligations. Those things are far more important than politics.

Now, I am aware that more politically savvy people than I caution against such talk. I am aware that a segment of my party believes that anything short of complete and unquestioning loyalty to a president who belongs to my party is unacceptable and suspect.

If I have been critical, it not because I relish criticizing the behavior of the president of the United States. If I have been critical, it is because I believe that it is my obligation to do so, as a matter of duty and conscience. The notion that one should stay silent as the norms and values that keep America strong are undermined and as the alliances and agreements that ensure the stability of the entire world are routinely threatened by the level of thought that goes into 140 characters – the notion that one should say and do nothing in the face of such mercurial behavior is ahistoric and, I believe, profoundly misguided.

A Republican president named Roosevelt had this to say about the president and a citizen’s relationship to the office:

“The President is merely the most important among a large number of public servants. He should be supported or opposed exactly to the degree which is warranted by his good conduct or bad conduct, his efficiency or inefficiency in rendering loyal, able, and disinterested service to the nation as a whole. Therefore, it is absolutely necessary that there should be full liberty to tell the truth about his acts, and this means that it is exactly as necessary to blame him when he does wrong as to praise him when he does right. Any other attitude in an American citizen is both base and servile.” President Roosevelt continued. “To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”

Acting on conscience and principle is the manner in which we express our moral selves, and as such, loyalty to conscience and principle should supersede loyalty to any man or party. We can all be forgiven for failing in that measure from time to time. I certainly put myself at the top of the list of those who fall short in that regard. I am holier-than-none. But too often, we rush not to salvage principle but to forgive and excuse our failures so that we might accommodate them and go right on failing—until the accommodation itself becomes our principle.

In that way and over time, we can justify almost any behavior and sacrifice almost any principle. I’m afraid that is where we now find ourselves.

When a leader correctly identifies real hurt and insecurity in our country and instead of addressing it goes looking for somebody to blame, there is perhaps nothing more devastating to a pluralistic society. Leadership knows that most often a good place to start in assigning blame is to first look somewhat closer to home. Leadership knows where the buck stops. Humility helps. Character counts. Leadership does not knowingly encourage or feed ugly and debased appetites in us.

Leadership lives by the American creed: E Pluribus Unum. From many, one. American leadership looks to the world, and just as Lincoln did, sees the family of man. Humanity is not a zero-sum game. When we have been at our most prosperous, we have also been at our most principled. And when we do well, the rest of the world also does well.
These articles of civic faith have been central to the American identity for as long as we have all been alive. They are our birthright and our obligation. We must guard them jealously, and pass them on for as long as the calendar has days. To betray them, or to be unserious in their defense is a betrayal of the fundamental obligations of American leadership. And to behave as if they don’t matter is simply not who we are.

Now, the efficacy of American leadership around the globe has come into question. When the United States emerged from World War II we contributed about half of the world’s economic activity. It would have been easy to secure our dominance, keeping the countries that had been defeated or greatly weakened during the war in their place. We didn’t do that. It would have been easy to focus inward. We resisted those impulses. Instead, we financed reconstruction of shattered countries and created international organizations and institutions that have helped provide security and foster prosperity around the world for more than 70 years.

Now, it seems that we, the architects of this visionary rules-based world order that has brought so much freedom and prosperity, are the ones most eager to abandon it.

The implications of this abandonment are profound. And the beneficiaries of this rather radical departure in the American approach to the world are the ideological enemies of our values. Despotism loves a vacuum. And our allies are now looking elsewhere for leadership. Why are they doing this? None of this is normal. And what do we as United States Senators have to say about it?

The principles that underlie our politics, the values of our founding, are too vital to our identity and to our survival to allow them to be compromised by the requirements of politics. Because politics can make us silent when we should speak, and silence can equal complicity.

I have children and grandchildren to answer to, and so, Mr. President, I will not be complicit.

I have decided that I will be better able to represent the people of Arizona and to better serve my country and my conscience by freeing myself from the political considerations that consume far too much bandwidth and would cause me to compromise far too many principles.

To that end, I am announcing today that my service in the Senate will conclude at the end of my term in early January 2019.

It is clear at this moment that a traditional conservative who believes in limited government and free markets, who is devoted to free trade, and who is pro-immigration, has a narrower and narrower path to nomination in the Republican party — the party that for so long has defined itself by belief in those things. It is also clear to me for the moment we have given in or given up on those core principles in favor of the more viscerally satisfying anger and resentment. To be clear, the anger and resentment that the people feel at the royal mess we have created are justified. But anger and resentment are not a governing philosophy.

There is an undeniable potency to a populist appeal — but mischaracterizing or misunderstanding our problems and giving in to the impulse to scapegoat and belittle threatens to turn us into a fearful, backward-looking people. In the case of the Republican party, those things also threaten to turn us into a fearful, backward-looking minority party.

We were not made great as a country by indulging or even exalting our worst impulses, turning against ourselves, glorying in the things which divide us, and calling fake things true and true things fake. And we did not become the beacon of freedom in the darkest corners of the world by flouting our institutions and failing to understand just how hard-won and vulnerable they are.

This spell will eventually break. That is my belief. We will return to ourselves once more, and I say the sooner the better. Because to have a heathy government we must have healthy and functioning parties. We must respect each other again in an atmosphere of shared facts and shared values, comity and good faith. We must argue our positions fervently, and never be afraid to compromise. We must assume the best of our fellow man, and always look for the good. Until that days comes, we must be unafraid to stand up and speak out as if our country depends on it. Because it does.

I plan to spend the remaining fourteen months of my senate term doing just that.
Mr. President, the graveyard is full of indispensable men and women — none of us here is indispensable. Nor were even the great figures from history who toiled at these very desks in this very chamber to shape this country that we have inherited. What is indispensable are the values that they consecrated in Philadelphia and in this place, values which have endured and will endure for so long as men and women wish to remain free. What is indispensable is what we do here in defense of those values. A political career doesn’t mean much if we are complicit in undermining those values.

I thank my colleagues for indulging me here today, and will close by borrowing the words of President Lincoln, who knew more about healing enmity and preserving our founding values than any other American who has ever lived. His words from his first inaugural were a prayer in his time, and are no less so in ours:
“We are not enemies, but friends. We must not be enemies. Though passion may have strained, it must not break our bonds of affection. The mystic chords of memory will swell when again touched, as surely they will be, by the better angels of our nature.”

Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

18 thoughts on “Be Not Complicit

  1. Bruce Hall

    Well said.

    Whether the discord comes from the left or right, the politics of special interests, identity politics, politics of race, nationalistic politics, or whatever discordant theme drives them.

    There are legitimate issues with legitimate differences of opinion. Economic policy, defense policy, taxation policy, and others. But rather than discuss these differences, the left and the right have moved to the periphery and hardened their positions. We have the “free for all” Bernie Sanders contingent and the Rand Paul “no government is the only good government” and the Donald Trump “I’m going to personally attack the opposition” government. These are all populist approaches… just different populations.

    Can we return to civility? Civility left town quite a while ago if it was ever there. There was always a certain strained decorum in Washington, but all that is left is the strained part. Trump is simply the first president to say that he is all partisan and doesn’t care about the opinions of those who oppose him. Previous presidents didn’t care either, but they were more image conscious so they couched their disdain in buzzwords and indecipherable phrases and inferring that the opposition was unenlightened (the definition of unenlightened being “you don’t agree with me”).

    We have become Europeanized… Balkanized. Fractured, contentious, derogatory politics is the norm… perfectly reflecting a fractured, contentious, derogatory society. We have become the precursor to Oceania.

    Reply
    1. 2slugbaits

      the left and the right have moved to the periphery and hardened their positions

      Most of the academic political science I’ve seen says this is not true. Today’s liberals are about as liberal as they were 40 years ago. If anything, they’re slightly more conservative. All of the movement in the political spectrum has come from the center right moving to the extreme right. Even the political scientists at the conservative AEI agree with that.

      We have the “free for all” Bernie Sanders contingent

      Huh? Sanders supported very large tax increases. That’s not my idea of “free for all.” Sanders tended to focus on cases in which markets fail. And most of the coherent criticisms of Sanders’ proposals came from left leaning think tanks.

      Can we return to civility? We probably have Newt Gingrich and his GOPAC tactics to thank for today’s incivility. He quite consciously advocated incivility as a political tactic. In any event, I would be happy if we just had intelligent dialogue. There was a time when there were intelligent conservative voices….George Will, David Frum, Fred Barnes, Morton Kondracke, Andrew Sullivan, etc. Most of them have strongly rejected Trumpism, and in the case of Andrew Sullivan he has become something of a liberal even though his instincts are still conservative. You know the conservative movement is in a bad way when Heritage and the WSJ are the leading voices on the right. And can anyone take Trump’s economic advisors as having a serious grasp of macroeconomics???

      the definition of unenlightened being “you don’t agree with me”

      No, the definition of enlightened means you can provide a reasoned and logically consistent argument based on empirical data. It doesn’t mean you advocate austerity when the economy is at the ZLB and a Democrat is President, but then advocate huge deficits when the economy is at full employment and a Republican is President. It means learning the difference between a genuine skepticism and denial out of ignorance. It means forming your opinions based on your own thoughts and not changing them to match whatever the tribal leader says. When people keep changing their opinions to whatever the tweet of the day is, no matter how it contradicts yesterday’s tweet, that is unenlightened. Unenlightened is when you continue to believe in Birtherism when all of the evidence proves that view is wrong.

      Reply
  2. PeakTrader

    “The world’s most exclusive club” – the U.S. Senate – has always been a problem for Presidents.

    Their egos cannot overcome Trump’s. Anyway, Corker and Flake are on their way out.

    The country may have to wait, until after the 2018 election to repeal and replace Obamacare.

    Reply
  3. Jeffrey J. Brown

    I can’t help but wonder if Trump’s long term goal is to destroy the GOP, aided by “Useful idiots” who accept Trump–who was a Democrat for most of his life–as their political savior, while characterizing life long Republicans as “RINO’s.”  

    Regardless of Trump’s true intentions, he does seem to be effectively destroying the GOP, and I suspect that a lot of swing voters are counting down the days until they can vote a straight Democratic Party ticket in the midterm elections in 2018. 

    Traditionally, I think that the party in power in the White House tends to lose congressional seats in midterm elections, but given what even Republicans are saying about Trump, and given his huge disapproval numbers, the 2018 midterm election could be a wave election that puts the Democratic Party in charge of one or both houses of Congress.

    In any case, I find it curious that so many Trump supporters are supporting someone who was a Democrat for most of his life, while bitterly criticizing life long Republicans as RINO’s, but so it goes these days in the delusional wing of the GOP, and there is perhaps no better metric for measuring the delusional status of the Republican base than a poll conducted in 2016 that indicated that about 72% of registered Republicans believed that Obama was not born in the US. This number was no doubt influenced by Trump’s bizarre Birtherism campaign.

    Reply
    1. PeakTrader

      The negative news on Trump by the mainstream media is 93%, Democrats want to impeach him, and many established Republicans didn’t vote for him. Yet, Trump could be reelected.

      Polls can’t be trusted or have much predictive power, and a significant percentage of Democrats also had doubts Obama was born in the U.S..

      Trump was very specific about his positions on many issues before he was elected.

      Reply
      1. baffling

        “significant percentage of Democrats also had doubts Obama was born in the U.S..”
        wrong. i know of none. peak is creating faux news!

        Reply
    2. Steven Kopits

      I view Trump as a symptom, not a cause. The divisions are within the Party itself, and reflect the mood of voters rather than leadership.

      Let’s be clear: Bannon is correct. The Congress has done really nothing useful for years (if you didn’t like Obama policies). Republicans have been unable to act on Obamacare, taxes and immigration. Guys like Corker and Jeff Flake, both of whom I admire, have wonderful manners and a deep commitment to the Constitution and civil government. And yet, if you’re in, say, West Virginia, you might ask, “What have these guys done for me?” If they are ineffective, then they create the impression of empty form. That’s the weakness of the establishment right now.

      I would say, on current trends, the Republican Party will experience a schism some time in the spring.

      Reply
    3. 2slugbaits

      I’m not sure Trump was ever a Democrat, just as I’m not sure he truly believes in the GOP agenda. Trump believes in himself and he’ll say and do whatever it takes to promote himself. If it means hanging out with Democrats when doing business in NYC, then so be it. If it means flattering the braindead wingnuts in the GOP, then so be it. He’s transactional. Whatever it takes to get what he wants.

      Reply
  4. CoRev

    Flake is losing badly to his Republican primary opponent. So badly, because he always was a RINO, and his constituents are fed up.

    Corker has already announced his retirement, so has little to lose, but gains notoriety for that post retirement media post.

    Reply
  5. Erik Poole

    Bruce Hall wrote: “We have become Europeanized… ”

    I had to laugh. Hopefully behind that statement is some understanding of the importance and aspirations of the European Union.

    Yes, this time the US ‘cultural wars’ have gotten completely out of hand. I feel very sorry for intelligent, thoughtful folks who identify with conservative politics and for many decent members of the Republican party.

    The current regime is doing untold damage to US interests and standing abroad. Osama bin Laden 1, USA 0. Perhaps some of you gentle folks could tell President Trump to stop working for Al Qaeda. Please.

    Maybe you need to also re-think the “War on Terrorism” or War on the enemies of the USA and Israel. I believe it was concocted by men and women with FASD who sniffed glue during the formative years.

    My question to forum followers: For how many more decades, will the September 11th, 2001 attacks continue to blow back on the USA?

    Reply
  6. 2slugbaits

    One thing that might help would be the abolition of the Electoral College. The Electoral College encourages candidates to target turnout at key precincts in key states, which tends to put inordinate emphasis on extreme, low information voters. Most political science is either about the median voter (e.g., Anthony Downs) or polyarchy (e.g., Robert Dahl). The Electoral College is not a good fit because the median voter is less relevant than the marginal voter. And when the Electoral College misfires and gives us a President who didn’t win the popular vote, the results are almost always bad.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.