Letters

Minority Report

Should presidents seek out dissent?

Presidents must do more than decide foreign-policy issues, Elliott Abrams contends ("The Prince of the White House," March/April 2013). They must also "manage, demand, cajole, impose, and wheedle" the national security bureaucracy in order to get their way, advice Abrams distills into 11 -- sometimes conflicting -- Machiavellian rules for today's "prince" in the Oval Office.

Presidents can either encourage or discourage dissenting opinions, and Abrams's argument is at its strongest when he asserts that the president must let advisors "fight it out" so that he can evaluate alternatives and avoid a false consensus. In making this point, however, Abrams echoes the inaccurate claims of President Dwight Eisenhower's Democratic critics, who asserted that Ike required consensus from his advisors and unquestioningly acted on their advice. In reality, Ike's experience as supreme allied commander led him to demand that his aides "debate and argue with each other" in front of him before he made important decisions, he later said.

Ike was not trapped by his advisors' consensus when in 1954 he rightly rejected the National Security Council (NSC) Planning Board's recommendation to intervene in Vietnam in support of the French. On the flip side, President George W. Bush did not solicit contrary views before issuing his 2002 orders suspending the Geneva Conventions and encouraging the use of enhanced interrogation techniques. Insisting on hearing dissenting opinions on these issues might have saved him from defeats in the Supreme Court several years later. I would even argue that employing a deliberative, Eisenhower-like process with the NSC might have saved the United States from the 1961 Bay of Pigs invasion, the 1965 escalation of the Vietnam War, the 1980s Iran-Contra affair, or the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

But Abrams's skepticism toward dissent goes deeper. When Defense Secretary Clark Clifford brought together a group of doves to advise President Lyndon B. Johnson on Vietnam in 1968, Abrams interprets this as disloyalty to the president. But right or wrong, the doves told the president what he needed to hear, rather than what he wanted to hear. In any case, LBJ ignored their advice, as was his prerogative. Friction between the White House staff (the "real" team, as Abrams calls it) and cabinet officials ("rivals for power") is inevitable, and Abrams is right to note that cabinet members must be responsive not just to presidents but also to Congress, interest groups, and their own agencies. But presidents need to listen to cabinet officers; their departments have long institutional memories, and, after all, they implement presidential policies.

Abrams also overstates his case when he advises presidents to dismiss all career NSC officials immediately upon taking office. "These people need to go, and fast," he writes, noting that holdover counterterrorism aide Richard Clarke criticized the Bush administration after leaving it. But when Clarke warned Bush about terrorist attacks prior to 9/11 -- like LBJ's dovish advisors -- Clarke was telling the president what he needed to hear. After all, loyalty is not a reliable proxy for competence. Abrams has some good advice for presidents, but it is not self-evident when they should take it.

JAMES P. PFIFFNER
Professor of Public Policy
George Mason University
Arlington, Va.


Elliott Abrams replies:

I appreciate James Pfiffner's careful reading of my article. Where he and I may part company is the question of hunting up dissenting advice.

I suggested that a president must hear dissenting advice when it exists in his cabinet or national security agencies more generally. It should not be kept from him through some process of homogenization, nor obviously should it be suppressed. But I do not think there is an obligation to seek out contrary views when they do not exist or exist only in newspaper editorials or academic circles.

Pfiffner argues that presidents put themselves at a disadvantage when they do not seek dissenting advice before making important decisions and criticizes President George W. Bush (under whom I worked) because he "did not solicit contrary views" on some occasions and was not "insisting on hearing dissenting opinions." This goes too far. If no national security officials or agencies offer a dissent and the Justice Department confirms the legality of the contemplated action, the president should not chase after objections.

As for listening to cabinet officers rather than ignoring them -- sure. But taking their advice is something else again. That depends on the president's estimation of just how smart, competent, loyal, and reliable that cabinet officer is. As we all know, in every cabinet the range is wide.

Letters

Freedom's March

History might not be ending, but democracy is still gaining ground.

After witnessing the Soviet Union's fall and the global expansion of democracy, scholar Francis Fukuyama speculated that we were approaching an "end of history" in which liberal democracy would be the world's only accepted political system. Conversely, Joshua Kurlantzick warns that recent cases of democratic failure signal that "democracy is in retreat" ("One Step Forward, Two Steps Back," March/April 2013).

Both predictions seem excessive to us. Democracy has made great strides since 1970, when only one in four sovereign countries was democratic. By 1995, more than half were. It's true that over the last 15 years we've seen a remarkable stasis in the prevalence of democracy. In its 2013 report, Freedom House rates 90 of the world's countries as "free" -- the same number as five years ago and only one more than 10 years ago. Still, this is hardly a sign of democracy in dramatic decline.

Moreover, democracy remains overwhelmingly popular in every corner of the world. In the Globalbarometer's latest survey of 55 mostly developing countries, two-thirds of respondents say democracy is their most preferred political system (including a majority in 49 of 55 countries), and 83 percent say democracy is suitable for their country. According to the World Values Survey, in two-thirds of 47 surveyed countries, the percentage rating democracy favorably increased over time. In only five countries did this percentage decline by more than 3 percentage points. Although Kurlantzick warns that the global middle class is turning away from democracy, support is actually highest among the most educated.

As Kurlantzick suggests, it is potentially worrying that the flat-lining of democracy has coincided with steady economic growth, a burgeoning global middle class, and popular dissatisfaction in several young democracies, including Bangladesh, Indonesia, and Pakistan. But the primary culprit in this democratic turmoil is the changing composition of the world's democracies, rather than any resurgence of authoritarianism: Largely due to normative and international pressures, democracy has spread to dozens of poor countries with small middle classes and high inequality, precisely the countries least likely to democratize 50 to 100 years ago. These facts do not presage a retreat of democracy, nor do they contradict the proposition that wealthier and more educated populations tend to promote democratic development.

In effect, the global advance of democracy has become a victim of its own success. The more democracy spreads, the less it can be concentrated in the most favorable environments. Although history has shown that poor countries like Benin, India, and Mongolia can become stable democracies, others like Bangladesh, Indonesia, and Pakistan continue to struggle, as did the United States, France, and Italy in the early days of democracy.

Democracies with wealthy and educated populations have been particularly stable, with the worrisome exception of Hungary. To date, no democracy with a per capita income above $11,000 (in today's dollars) has ever slid backward. If current rates of growth in the developing world are sustained, we have good reason to expect the consolidation of many of the world's young democracies.

CARLES BOIX, MICHAEL MILLER, and SUSAN STOKES
Professor of Politics, Princeton University
Princeton, N.J.
Lecturer, Australian National University
Canberra, Australia
Professor of Political Science, Yale University
New Haven, Conn.