The Foreign Service Journal, June 2017

20 JUNE 2017 | THE FOREIGN SERVICE JOURNAL However, I can’t imagine that Arch- bishop Tutu would have considered any government employee in apartheid-era South Africa to be “neutral” in any mean- ingful sense. Similarly, executive branch employees publicly engaging in or calling for “resistance” to the Trump “regime” are engaging either in very shallow advocacy or very deep hypocrisy. No Neutrality As executive branch employees, we are each part of the Trump administration. Anything else we do or say cannot escape that simple fact. This is not to call into question anyone’s sincerity who believes that a line has been crossed, thereby creat- ing a moral imperative for resistance—but rather to point out that if you’ve judged that something really is so bad as to be in the territory of moral imperatives, then the only first credible step is to stop serving the administration. This is not a call for all of us to quietly go along with every decision a political leader makes. Our responsibility (and right, and privilege) is to inform, advise and persuade our political leaders on what we consider to be the best decisions, drawing on the full breadth of our collec- tive experience, knowledge and expertise. At the extreme, this includes a responsi- bility to make use of the Dissent Channel when we believe an already-made policy decision to be fundamentally unsound. But the most recent publicized use of the Dissent Channel—in response to the January executive order on visa policy, “Protecting the Nation from Foreign Ter- rorist Entry into the United States,” com- monly known as “the travel ban”—high- lights the distinction between the policy advocacy within the system that is our responsibility, and the policy advocacy in public that is our doom. The Dissent Channel cable itself was an excellent example of the proper role of the professional bureaucracy. Drawing from a wide range of knowledge and expertise, those responsible for the implementation of a new policy worked within the well- established channel to articulate clearly and compellingly the many likely negative ramifications of the policy. However, the full text of the cable, along with the fact that it had collected close to 1,000 signatories, leaked to the media, apparently before the cable itself had even been submitted. This kind of leak (as with the leaking of the Syria dis- sent cable in 2016) undermines the Dis- sent Channel system. It gives the appear- ance—accurate or not—that the formal memorandizing of dissent was largely undertaken for the purpose of public advocacy via the leak. That puts the political leadership of the administration on the defensive publicly, inevitably affecting any response to the cable within the now-preempted estab- lished process. Under the FAM, individual Foreign Service officers can’t write a press release articulating their disagreement with administration policy as a means of either public advocacy or political pressure. But leaking a Dissent Channel cable has the same effect while cloaking it under the auspices of a formal, protected process. So there are certain types of within- the-system policy advocacy that are our right—and actually our job—with the Dissent Channel process being the most extreme variation. On the flip side are the activities clearly prohibited by the Hatch Act or the FAM. In drawing a line some- where in between them, just what higher standard of public nonpartisanship am I calling for? It’s something I’ll call the Golden Rule of Nonpartisanship: serve under lead- ers you oppose as you would have others serve under leaders you support; imple- ment policies with which you disagree as you would have others implement policies with which you agree. Nonpartisanship’s Golden Rule In this construct, I would consider the Hatch Act and FAM akin to the Ten Com- mandments. As a list of behaviors that are prohibited or prescribed, the Ten Com- mandments are a pretty good baseline for societal behavior. But if you’re looking for an ideal moral code, things like “don’t kill” and “don’t steal” set a pretty low bar for social norms. The Golden Rule—to treat others as you would have them treat you—may be lacking in detail, but it at least sets a more elevated, ideal objective. Similarly, the rules found in the FAM and Hatch Act are important to keep the Foreign Service officially nonpartisan, but ultimately do nothing more than tell us what is technically prohibited or required. This leaves a world of behavior, speech and activities that are technically permit- ted, but not necessarily wise if we care to maintain a productive and effective work- ing relationship between the professional Foreign and Civil Service and our political leaders. My formulation of the Golden Rule in terms of both policy and leader is deliber- ate, and highlights the various permitted behaviors that I think we should nonethe- less circumscribe for the long-term health of the bureaucracy. In the office, our implementation of even the most personally repugnant policies should do nothing to betray our opinion of them. No officer should try to maintain “personal credibility” or save face by ensuring that subordinates, local staff or external interlocutors know that they are implementing that policy under duress.