The November Surprise

Forget October bombshells. The real surprise in the 2012 U.S. presidential campaign will come when disaffected voters shun the polls.

The most shocking thing about October surprises is that they happen so regularly that they really ought not to be called surprises. If anything, they have become a staple of American presidential and congressional politics, further proof that political parties will stoop to almost anything to win the jobs that most of them end up sacrificing to their empty political agendas.

For those of you unfamiliar with the term, the October surprise is an event that takes place shortly before Election Day in the United States -- the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November -- and has the potential to impact the results.

The term was first used during the 1968 presidential campaign, when President Lyndon B. Johnson announced a suspension of bombing attacks on North Vietnam in the days before the election, allegedly to drum up support for his vice president, Democratic candidate Hubert Humphrey. It has also been claimed that supporters of Humphrey's opponent, Richard Nixon, attempted their own "surprise" by sabotaging peace negotiations with the North Vietnamese. Four years later the announcement by Nixon's national security advisor, Henry Kissinger, that "peace is at hand" brought the term "October surprise" into more common parlance. It turned up again following allegations that Ronald Reagan's supporters had somehow cut a deal with Iranian leaders to hold onto the 52 American hostages in Tehran until after the 1980 election, thus undercutting incumbent Jimmy Carter's chances at the polls. (The hostages were ultimately released on the day of Reagan's inauguration.)

In later years, the "surprises" have become ever more predictable, including an indictment that raised the specter of George H.W. Bush's Iran-Contra involvement days before his contest against Bill Clinton, the surfacing of a drunk-driving violation deep in the past of candidate George W. Bush, and announcements in the weeks leading up to the 2006 midterm elections both of congressional sex scandals and the conviction of Saddam Hussein. Shortly before the 2004 contest, Osama bin Laden famously produced a pre-election video directed at the American people and explicitly mentioning both President Bush and Democratic candidate John Kerry.

Given that such stunners are now as much a staple of U.S. elections as poolside fundraisers in the backyards of billionaires and broken campaign promises, it is worth considering what political rabbits the masterminds of this year's campaign may be inclined to pull out of the hats their bosses long ago threw into the ring -- or what mischief foreign leaders might be willing to manufacture to affect the outcome of this year's U.S. vote.

Already, Washington insiders can be heard over their power breakfasts speculating whether some Middle Eastern leader might provoke a pre-election test of U.S. resolve or otherwise trigger a campaign season political reaction. Will Benjamin Netanyahu, who reportedly once said he "speaks English with a heavy Republican accent," create some kind of loyalty test for President Barack Obama that would either generate support for his coalition or help undermine the president with, say, Jewish voters in the key swing states of Florida and Pennsylvania? The obvious candidate for a crisis: Iran.

A more likely scenario is an old-fashioned political scandal. Perhaps Republicans are keeping their powder dry on investigations into national security leaks from the Obama White House until the fall, in the hope of convening hearings that might implicate or embarrass senior officials close to the president.

Democratic researchers, meanwhile, will almost certainly roll out new "revelations" about Mitt Romney's offshore finances or the activities of Bain Capital, his old firm, in the hope of countering voters' concerns about the economy with reasons to be suspicious of the Republican candidate.

Of course, other kinds of October surprises also have the White House worried -- the unexpected kind. Topping this list: major economic bad news that would support Republicans' narrative that the president is not up to fixing what ails America. A Wile E. Coyote moment in the eurozone, a sharp downturn in China, more bad jobs reports, or unrest triggered by high food prices could all fall into this category. So, too, could a terrorist attack or a Tet-like turn for the worse in Afghanistan, Iraq, or Pakistan.

My sense, however, is that we are in for a different sort of surprise, one that reflects not the gravity of issues being discussed but the banality of the personality-driven, money-intoxicated, big-ideas-light campaign that is being waged. This year's surprise will probably not happen in October, but in November, when -- despite campaign spending that could run into the billions (or perhaps because of it) -- we may well see record-low voter turnout. Perhaps this is all too predictable at a time when Americans increasingly view Washington politics as remote from their lives as the wave of elections in the far-off Middle East.

A national yawn at a potential turning point in the history of the country would be more than an indictment of the cynical approach to politics that has come to dominate the hack brain trusts in both parties. It would be a watershed in the history of the United States and the world because this is not only a moment of profoundly important choices for America. It is also a moment of great opportunity, an inflection point at which America is well placed to reinvent itself yet again.

More than any country in the world right now, America is poised to lead and prosper in the century ahead. I say this noting all the economic grimness of the past several years, the growing inequality, and the dysfunction of American politics. Consider that the United States is in the midst of an energy revolution that can create jobs and lower the cost of energy, and thus help attract investment and reduce dependence on oil from dangerous places like the Middle East. The country has educational and legal systems that give it a special advantage in a world in which labor and materials are less and less important to competitiveness than the production -- and protection -- of intellectual capital. America is still the most stable, wealthy, capital-endowed economy on Earth. It has a chance to rebuild its infrastructure at record-low costs thanks to near-negative interest rates -- if only we were to open our eyes to the critical difference between investment and mere spending. And the rest of the world is faltering in ways that make America look even better.

Sadly, this year's November surprise might be that too many Americans just don't care anymore, are too alienated by tawdry politics, have given up. That might make this the first great moment of opportunity in U.S. history when America did not rise to the occasion. This is how great powers fall.

Of course, America needn't fumble. There is still the chance for one other kind of surprise this fall -- a surprise in which one or both of the presidential candidates actually recognizes that this is a moment of huge possibilities for America and that he has a plan for tapping into them. It will require that they eschew the food fights and name-calling and be willing to fight institutionalized power in Washington. It will require that they get specific and think big. It will require that they truly lead. But that, of course, would be something more than a November surprise -- it would be a real shocker, one just like two defibrillator paddles on the chest of a patient in an intensive care ward.

Justin Sullivan/Getty Images

David Rothkopf

Town of Secrets

How classified information became Washington’s currency of choice.

Hey, Sean Penn, where is your righteous indignation now? Where is your star-studded Hollywood blockbuster about how cynical Washington insiders are playing fast and loose with America's national security laws to advance their political interests?

You nailed George W. Bush and company with Fair Game, and there is little doubt the Bush team deserved it for exposing CIA officer Valerie Plame and by extension the undercover contacts she had made worldwide. But somehow I doubt you are working on the sequel about how Barack Obama's administration has presided over a period of potentially far more damaging leaks that just happen to promote the president's image as being a tough guy with his hand on the trigger.

Oh sure, the investigation into (at least some) of the leaks has just begun and in all likelihood will be hijacked by Republicans for political gain in the months leading up to the presidential election this November. And we can't be sure that the leaks were orchestrated or approved high up, or even who did what -- though there is a bit of a guessing game going on in Washington on the latter. But this we know: From the moment we first heard too many details of the Osama bin Laden mission to the damaging over-reporting of the Stuxnet cyberattacks to the reports of the president poring over kill lists and supervising closed meetings of top advisors at which secret missions were approved, and, on to recent leaks about the CIA covert work supporting the Syrian opposition, we have been fed a steady stream of information we should never have had.

It is possible that this all slipped out due to the inattentiveness of our secret keepers or an administration-wide outbreak of some new strain of Tourette's Syndrome that forces senior officials to uncontrollably blurt out closely guarded secrets. Perhaps no senior official was involved. But wait -- who are we kidding? Of course senior officials were involved. Some of the meetings being reported on and some of the plans were really only known to a handful of top people.

Which brings me back to Sean Penn and friends. If a Republican were manning the Oval Office right now, is there any doubt that they would be harkening back to the orchestrated outing of Plame and calling it part of an insidious pattern? But as it is -- despite expressions of concern about recent leaks from both Democrats like Sen. Dianne Feinstein and mainstream Republicans like Sen. John McCain and absolutely unconvincing expressions of "shock, shock" from President Obama, most of those who were outraged the last time around have kept quiet about the current debate. Or, alternatively, as in Bill Keller's New York Times op-ed "The Leak Police," they have focused on how vital such leaks and their reporting are to the national interest.

The truth is, I agree completely with the thrust of most of those op-eds including Keller's. As Americans, we benefit from knowing much of what has been reported. And the reporters who have reported these facts are not only just doing their jobs -- they're doing it well. (As Feinstein said regarding David Sanger's excellent recent book covering many of the Obama team's secret operations, Confront and Conceal, "You learn more from the book than I did as chairman of the intelligence committee.")

But these leaks are in fact, part of a cynical pattern of abuse of U.S. national security laws that has taken place in this administration and the ones that immediately preceded it -- abuse that is endemic to the conduct of regular national security business in Washington and has been for decades. (Keller quotes former Times editor Max Frankel way back in 1971 as saying "Presidents make ‘secret' decisions only to reveal them for the purposes of frightening an adversary nation, wooing a friendly electorate, protecting their reputations." Frankel, who was defending the Times's publication of the Pentagon Papers, then goes on to enumerate how playing the leak game is part of doing business in D.C. for the military and officials of every rank.)

Just as poppet beads are the currency used to conduct business at Club Med, leaks are the currency long favored by senior officials and reporters here in our nation's capital. Bits and pieces of unreported news are fed to journalists in exchange for good relations. Perversely in Washington, secrets become used as hush money -- give a secret, keep a secret, or gain a leg up on someone. That's not so bad when the whispered exchanges are about who's in line for some top job or who had a spat with whom. The problem comes when the leaks create threats to the U.S. national interest or they violate national security laws.

I draw a distinction between real threats and the law because one problem we face is that our culture of secrecy in Washington has led to the over-classification of information. Too many documents get stamped "Confidential" or "Secret" or "Top Secret" that shouldn't be. Why? In part, it's because when you stamp a document that way it, you (and your readers) become more "important" -- or at least feel that way. It also happens, in part, because officials are cautious and worry about what might cause embarrassment, so they over-compensate by over-classifying.

But all this over-classification of documents carries many direct and indirect costs. It forces us to give too many people security clearances. It forces us to create costly and vast secure systems. And most importantly, it limits the transparency that is essential to a functioning democracy. (On top of leaks and excess secrecy, a related trend in this administration has been a focus on conducting foreign policy via secret missions that carry much less political risk because few can see them -- unless the highlight reel happens to, selectively, make its way into the press.)

For all the mystery and intrigue associated with Washington's secret world, the solutions for this problem are straightforward. First, we need to have fewer secrets. Set higher and clearer standards for classification. Enable fewer people to classify documents. Unclassify as many documents as possible.

Next, we need to have many fewer people with clearances. According to a 2011 report mandated by Congress, an astonishing 4.2 million people have security clearances a number which, per the Washington Post, "nearly rivals the population of metropolitan Washington." If the standard were actually protecting secrets that were essential to U.S. national security, the number could be a tiny percentage of that. That's especially true in this age of vast resources of open-source information.

Gen. Tony Zinni, former Centcom commander, once told me that he had looked at the classified information he received and concluded that 80 percent of it was available from open sources, and 80 percent of what remained could be found from open sources if you knew what you were looking for. In other words, only about 4 percent was unique information.

Finally, if the goal is real secrecy, then we need a permanent special prosecutor empowered to go after any hint of a leak at its own discretion. This needs to be permanent so that no administration can protect itself -- nor any Congress. (It has long been known in the executive branch that the best way to leak something is to send it in classified form up to the Hill, which is leakier than the Titanic.) If we stop classifying everything from the blandest State Department cable traffic to reports about Kim Jong Il's video collection (see WikiLeaks for proof that much of what's classified would be protected simply because it's too boring to read and remember) and if there were a sense that real prosecutions would follow leaks and that they could not be manipulated politically, then not only would we have fewer damaging and dangerous leaks, we'd save money, have greater transparency and, with some luck, enable Sean Penn to go back to making better movies about more interesting subjects.

Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images