Delusional Politics
Page 8
The author argues that everyone was ready to not win the election, and no one to win it. And it is from this preparedness or unpreparedness that the actions of the team would follow—from allegedly working with Russians during the campaign to the chaos during the transition period; from having no policy or even speech-writing experience in the team to not knowing what was going to be the President’s legislative agenda.
The book goes on to suggest that once Trump did take office, his White House was very quickly divided into three rival factions, each with its own independent agenda, which was almost always at odds with that of the others. So, while Bannon tried to amplify the alt-right sentiments (the book suggests he was the architect of the ‘Muslim ban’), Ivanka Trump and Jared Kushner wooed the New York elite, pushing for a ‘Democrat’ narrative. Reince Priebus—whom the book terms the weakest chief-of-staff to an American President in history—tried to anchor the Presidency in the classical, conservative, Republican ideology.
It is the recounting, and detailing, of how each of these factions tried to undercut the other, to mould the Presidency to suit their agenda, that is the most fascinating account in this book. Disagreements between party members, between colleagues in the Cabinet, between members of the West Wing, have always arisen, and will continue to do so. In fact, I would argue, disagreements between colleagues are vital, particularly in a democratic polity, for they ensure a leader is fully informed before making a decision. What is peculiar, and the aspect this book gives a very thorough account of, is the manipulative nature of these factions, and how ruthlessly they have gone after each other, to further their own agenda, with perhaps little regard for American policy. Chapter 20, titled ‘McMaster and Scaramucci’, which begins with the Trump administration deliberating upon the Afghanistan policy, perhaps best illustrates this point.
Ever since ‘The Great Game’ of the 1800s, Afghanistan has been front and centre in international politics between great powers. Post-2001, when President George Bush sent in US armed forces to rid the nation of the Taliban, the question of when the war would end loomed large over President Obama’s two terms. It came as no surprise then that President Trump too would have to find his answer to this question. He was presented with two options—on the one hand there was Steve Bannon, who viewed American intervention in Afghanistan as a failure of establishment thinking and was steadfastly against the idea of having any American soldiers in the region. On the other end of the spectrum were H.R. McMaster, the National Security Adviser, and the President’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner, who wanted to maintain status quo and retain soldiers, if not add more troops on the ground. What ensued between the two camps was a kind of personal war, with both using media outlets to undermine and denigrate one another. Bannon through Breitbart and its associates targeted the National Security Agency (NSA), labelling Kushner a globalist and interventionist, while Kushner, through outlets such as NYT and Washington Post, upheld the record of Lt. Gen. McMaster, showcasing him as a figure of stability, particularly when compared to Bannon, who was shown as disruptive.
What is interesting in this example, and many others that the author highlights through the book, is that under the garb of ideology, each of the factions inside this White House, is ultimately looking to cut a deal that serves its own interest. And there are no means that they would not use to achieve this end—the Muslim ban, the pulling out of the climate accord, the policy on Afghanistan, the bickering with North Korea, attempts to repeal Obamacare, all serve the purpose of one of these factions, often at the cost of the other, and most notably, at the cost of the nation.
To be fair to the author, he himself cautions the reader against taking the book too seriously. Right at the start, he issues an author’s note which reads ‘Many of the accounts of what has happened in the Trump White House are in conflict with one another; many, in Trumpian fashion, are baldly untrue. Those conflicts, and that looseness with the truth, if not with reality itself, are an elemental thread of the book. Sometimes I have let the players offer their versions, in turn allowing the reader to judge them. In other instances I have, through a consistency in accounts and through sources I have come to trust, settled on a version of events I believe to be true.’
It is perhaps fitting that the first documented accounts of President Trump’s first 100 days in office are based on delusion and exaggeration. The President is known to have made exaggerated claims, whether pertaining to his business dealings or his personality, and the media too has published exaggerated stories of both his past and present. It would seem neither party is ready to shed the delusion and pull back on the hyperbole just yet.
For how long this delusional war goes on is anyone’s guess—but its larger impact on creating a divided and increasingly partisan American society has become increasingly clear.
A Higher Loyalty: Truth, Lies and Leadership
Perhaps the most immediate concern for President Trump going forward is the Robert Mueller-led investigation into the President’s ties with Russia. The genesis of the investigation was a dossier prepared by a former British intelligence officer, now a private investigator, Christopher Steele, who specializes in Russian affairs. 73 According to the dossier prepared by Steele, evidence suggests that President Trump had colluded with Russian officials to win the Presidential election of 2016. While there are numerous actors critical to this investigation, none is more important than James Comey, former FBI director, who was hired by President Obama and later sacked by President Trump.
On 5 July 2016, James Comey, director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation made a press statement about the then on-going investigations into the former Secretary of State, former First Lady, and the Democratic candidate for President, Hillary Clinton’s use of a personal email server during her term as President Obama’s Secretary of State. In his statement, Comey made clear that there would be no criminal investigations against Mrs Clinton. Crucially, however, Comey claimed Mrs Clinton had been ‘extremely careless’ 74 in how she went about conducting business during her term. Fast-forward to 28 October 2016, eleven days before the country went to vote; Comey confirmed to Congress that the FBI had found further information pertaining to Mrs Clinton’s emails while investigating an unrelated case. 75 This new information mandated FBI reopen the investigation into Mrs Clinton’s handling of her official emails as Secretary of State.
It was during this period—July 2016 to October 2016—that Comey and the FBI were also investigating the Trump campaign, specifically George Papadopoulos, the campaign’s foreign policy adviser, for possible collusion with Russian agents to undermine the electoral process. 76 Unlike the investigations into Mrs Clinton’s emails, on which the FBI director so uncharacteristically made public statements, the Russia investigations by the FBI were kept secret from the voters.
Why were different standards followed for what the public should know regarding investigations into the two candidates vying for Presidency? Comey has tried to answer this central question more during the mega-promotion drive of his book, A Higher Loyalty, rather than in the book itself.
In an interview which lasted five hours, 77 Comey gave ABC News three reasons for these differing standards: first, he claimed Mrs Clinton’s conduct with regards to her email server was made public when the inspector general for the intelligence community notified the department of justice and the FBI of her ‘carelessness’ and sought an investigation into the matter. However, the alleged collusion of the Trump campaign with Russian officials and the FBI’s investigation of these allegations was not public information at the time, and given the premature nature of the investigations, he did not want to alert any of the potential culprits by going public. Second, Comey claims, he made public statements regarding Mrs Clinton’s actions because she was directly under investigation. On the other hand, the investigations of any role Russia played in the elections, and whether or not any American individuals from the Trump campaign colluded with Russians, was a much broader investigati
on and was not specific to candidate Trump. And third, and perhaps most crucially, Comey claims the likelihood of Mrs Clinton winning the election (polls had her leading with a significant margin) was ‘a factor’ in his public pronouncements—he did not want the American people electing an illegitimate President as that would tarnish the reputation of the FBI as an institution.
Any analysis of Comey’s actions, and their impact on the election results, can only take place with the benefit of hindsight. Yet such analysis is crucial to understand his role, for it had far reaching consequences—particularly given he was heading an apolitical institution. While it is meaningless to debate whether he should or should not have discussed either of the two investigations publicly, studying the stated reasons for the actions he took gives valuable insight on the motives behind his decisions.
Beginning with the first: while it is true that the investigations into Mrs Clinton were public knowledge, Comey’s press conference in July and his claim that she was ‘extremely careless’ gave the ‘crooked Hillary’ narrative further credence. The FBI is an apolitical institution and there is little precedent of the head of the organization speaking in front of the press about any case, let alone one which was so high profile. To then pass value judgements about the accused only made matters worse, particularly given that in the same statement, he made clear that she would not be criminally prosecuted. To claim not doing so would damage the reputation of the FBI is based on a weak foundation, as there was no precedent for such an action to begin with.
The second reason, too, doesn’t hold much water. If senior officials of the Trump campaign were colluding with Russian officials to influence the electoral processes, the voters perhaps had the right to know the FBI was investigating these claims—Comey’s stand of ‘upholding the credibility of the FBI’ would have been far more applicable in this case. This is not to say that he needed to conduct a press conference—a simple statement alluding to the role of Russia in undermining the election using fake news, and the FBI’s investigation of the same, would have served as a strong warning sign.
The third reason is perhaps the most crucial. For Comey to take decisions based on media polls of the election result makes his actions an act of politicking, a task outside his purview as director of the FBI. Moreover, it does serious damage to the credibility of the institution he was tasked to head, undermining his own principles. Throughout the publicity campaign for his book, and indeed in the book itself, Comey has tried to project himself as the last good Samaritan left in the United States, at a time when political discourse is at an all-time low; and when politicians would use any trick in the book to get elected. To then take decisions based on political arithmetic raises more questions than it answers.
Ostensibly, A Higher Loyalty by James Comey is a book about ethical leadership. The author gives a vivid account of the leaders he has encountered through his personal and professional life—from his first ‘boss’ Harry Howell, the grocery store owner for whom Comey worked as a teenager, to his own wife, Patrice, who he claims has taught him the most about leadership; from the Mafia boss Salvatore ‘Sammy the Bull’ Gravano, whom he helped bring to book, to Rudy Giuliani, under whom he helped rid New York City of the mafia’s control.
It is not hard, however, to gauge the book is more than a manual on what makes leaders ethical. It is also not a memoir of a man who has led an intriguing life, having taken charge of some of the most high-profile public prosecution cases. Rather, the book is an attempt to display the virtuous part of a man’s personality, who through his professional career has made attempts to uphold the truth, and bring to book those who took the law into their own hands. Ever since President Trump was elected, the media narrative, to put it mildly, has been unfavourable to Comey. His ‘October Surprise’ (reopening the investigation into Mrs Clinton just days before the country went to the polling stations) was heavily criticized on the day it was announced, and even more so once President Trump was elected. Comey’s decision was seen as an attempt to undermine the candidacy of Mrs Clinton, and many laid the blame for her loss at his doorstep. Nate Silver, founder and editor-in-chief of FiveThirtyEight, and one of America’s leading pollsters, writes that Comey single-handedly influenced the outcome of the election: ‘Clinton’s standing in the polls fell sharply. She’d led Trump by 5.9 percentage points in FiveThirtyEight’s popular vote projection at 12.01 a.m. on Oct. 28. A week later—after polls had time to fully reflect the letter—her lead had declined to 2.9 percentage points. That is to say, there was a shift of about 3 percentage points against Clinton . . . In the average swing state, Clinton’s lead declined from 4.5 percentage points at the start of Oct. 28 to just 1.7 percentage points on Nov. 4. If the polls were off even slightly, Trump could be headed to the White House.’ 78
Such narratives strike at the heart of a public servant, who holds himself and his office in such high regard. It is an attempt by the author then to share his side of the story, and to assert that the decisions he took came from a place of high ethics, as opposed to political consideration. The book is an unfamiliar place for Comey—a public prosecutor for most of his professional life, he is uncomfortable defending himself against the accusations hurled at him. The post of director of the FBI was supposed to be the crowning glory of his long career in public service—it has, however, become the proverbial albatross that hangs around his neck.
Having read the book, it would come as no surprise to me if closer to the 2020 Presidential elections, Comey decided to join active politics. Individuals of his stature, who take such pride in themselves, rarely go down without a fight. If he does take the plunge into active politics, this book will be regarded as the beginning of his political journey—where he introduces himself to those whose vote he seeks. There are signs in the book to suggest he has already made his decision—the references to him being a family man and his wife’s unconditional support throughout his career; how a small white lie he told people would lead to him becoming a serial liar; how he got into public service to take on bullies (a not so subtle reference to President Trump)—are all age-old techniques of American politicians to make themselves look worthy of holding elected office.
The clearest sign of Comey’s intent to join politics, though, is when one connects the first line of his book to the last. Channelling perhaps his inner Marc Antony, Comey begins the author’s note by questioning ‘who am I tell others what ethical leadership is?’; and concludes his acknowledgement section with ‘Thank you for the joy and the journey, which isn’t over yet’. I am not sure whether the author intended his readers to connect these dots, but nonetheless, they’re telling ways to open and conclude his book.
Will we see James Comey run for President of the United States? If I were a betting man, I wouldn’t bet against it.
CHAPTER 4
The India Story
‘The mass is wiser and more constant than the Prince.’
—Niccolo Machiavelli in Discourses on Livy
‘Tell your secret to the wind, but don’t blame it for telling the trees.’
—Kahlil Gibran
‘Kitnaa hai bad-naseeb “Zafar” dafn key liye do gaz zamin bhi na mili kuu-e-yaar mein [How unfortunate is Zafar! For his burial not even two yards of land were to be had, in the land of his beloved].’ 1
This was the fate of Bahadur Shah, the last emperor of the great Mughal Empire founded in 1526. At its peak, it extended over nearly all of the Indian subcontinent and large parts of Afghanistan. 2 It was the second-largest empire to have existed in the Indian subcontinent, spanning approximately four million square kilometres at its zenith, after only the Maurya Empire.
Imprisoned and exiled to Yangon, he died on 7 November 1862 at the age of eighty-seven. 3 His last rites were performed without informing anyone, with no vestige to distinguish where the great Mughal rests.
* * *
A Family Business—The Indian National Congress
A political party founded by Annie Bessant
4 and other Indian liberals, like Gopalkrishna Gokhale, 5 in the 1890s served as a vehicle for India’s independence after 190 years of colonial rule. In 2017, it faced near extinction.
One of its members, 6 known for his proximity to the ‘ruling family’, said, on 7 July 2017, that the party had faced an existential crisis as distinct from electoral failures from which it had recovered in the past. “Sultanate gone, but we behave like sultans”. This was viewed as open rebellion and he was chastised. 7
The senior Congress leader stated that the ‘Congress had faced electoral crisis’ from 1996 to 2004 when it was out of power and also faced a similar situation in 1977 when it lost the elections held immediately after the Emergency. ‘But today, I would say that the Congress is facing an existential crisis. It is not an electoral crisis. The party really is in deep crisis.’
He added, ‘We have to understand we are up against Mr Modi, Mr Shah. And they think differently, they act differently, and if we are not flexible in our approach, we will become irrelevant, frankly. 8
On 16 December 2017, in the lead-up to the State Assembly election in Gujarat, Rahul Gandhi, the forty-seven-year-old ‘reluctant prince’, assumed charge as the president of the 133-year-old party. 9 He became the sixth member 10 of the Nehru–Gandhi family to do so, replacing his mother Sonia who had held the post for nineteen years. The Nehru–Gandhi family has ruled the Congress party for forty years of its 133-year history. Rahul was elected unopposed. 11