One Year Later:
Government
With Jeremy D. Mayer
Visiting Professor of Government, Georgetown University
Tuesday, Sept. 10, 2002; Noon ET

One year after unprecedented attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon, how has the United States and the world changed? Is the war on terrorism still justified? How is the American political system -- including the presidency, Congress and our system of civil liberties -- responding to the challenges posed by the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks?

Jeremy D. Mayer, visiting professor of government at Georgetown University, was online Tuesday, Sept. 10 at Noon ET, to discuss the changing face and focus of the American political system.

Mayer recently authored the new textbook, "The Giant Awakens," which focuses on how the major institutions of goverment are responding to the challenges posed by the Sept. 11 attacks.

The transcript follows.

Editor's Note: Washingtonpost.com moderators retain editorial control over Live Online discussions and choose the most relevant questions for guests and hosts; guests and hosts can decline to answer questions.

Jeremy D. Mayer: Welcome to today's chat session. I'd like to focus today's discussion on the domestic politics of 9-11. Much has changed in our nation's politics as a result of the tragic events of that day--let's talk specifically about areas that have changed the most, and perhaps, more surprisingly, areas that have changed little.

Washington, D.C.: Any changes that have happened to the government as a result of 9/11 strike me as reactive and unlikely to last. What pre-emptive changes are in the works that will likely be more beneficial in the long run?

Jeremy D. Mayer: You are correct--many of the first changes are vanishing--the surge in Bush's popularity is ebbing, the bipartisan mood in Congress is absent, and the national unity that people sensed in the days after 9-11 is not as palpable.

But longer lasting changes have occurred, or are in the works. First, the President has proposed, after prodding from Democrats, the largest reorganization of the executive branch in 50 years. Some version of this will pass Congress and be signed, if not this session, then the next.

Second, the intelligence community is examining reorganization, and Secretary Rumsfeld's proposals for reorganizing the Defense Department have a much better chance of going through now than they did prior to 9-11.

Third, the American people are more focused on foreign policy than before, and this change is unlikely to vanish. Following the Cold War, foreign policy retreated as a public concern. It was barely an issue in the 92, 96, and 2000 presidential campaigns. 9-11 was a wake up call that the world's last remaining superpower had to remain engaged. In that sense, it is comparable to Pearl Harbor, which ended two decades of American isolationism.

Arlington, Va.: What is the status of Bush's new cabinet level Homeland Security post. When will that position take effect?

Jeremy D. Mayer: The Homeland Security bill is bogged down in Congress right now. The Senate Democrats want to protect the right of these tens of thousands of federal workers to unionize. The House Republicans and the President want to give the new Homeland Security agency the power to fire, relocate, and otherwise handle personnel matters without worrying about the vast protections offered to federal workers. This showdown mirrors the one over federalizing airline security workers. That fight the Democrats won. This one, I expect the Republicans to win, after some compromises.

This shows the reemergence, incidentally, of traditional partisan tensions. Republicans dislike unions, particularly govt. unions, because they historically give immense support to the Democratic Party. Democrats, of course, take the opposite view. I'm not saying that ideology isn't motivating both sides, but their self interest is also relevant!

washingtonpost.com: Thank you for joining us today Professor Mayer. What was the impetus behind writing this book? Has government changed that much in 12 months? What are some of those changes?

Jeremy D. Mayer: I wrote the book (9-11: The Giant Awakens--buy it now at Amazon) (apologies for shameless self-promotion) because I wanted to put 9-11 into a context that college students could understand. This brief textbook outlines how political science expects a political system to respond to crisis, and explores how the American system actually responded.

I've discussed some of the changes in the first answer, but one I did not mention is the enhanced surveillance powers of the government. In any national security crisis, here or in other countries, the first response is often to tighten security and limit freedom. Every society makes a choice between the benefits of liberty and needs of security. Historically, America has cherished liberty far more than many other societies. For example, the French and Israeli security forces do not observe constitutional niceties with terror suspects to the degree that we do. We were even considering deporting Moussaoui (the only alleged 9-11 hijacker arrested before 9-11) to France so they could really find out what he was planning, because our constitutional limits did not allow us to aggressively question him or search his computers, prior to the attack. The protections of our civil liberties are weaker today than they were before 9-11, and the majority of Americans are not displeased with this, according to polls.

Washington, D.C.: The homeland security office just changed the threat level to "orange" (severe). Is this system an effective change since 9/11?

Jeremy D. Mayer: I'm afraid that this color coded system has come in for a lot of deserved derision. It is unclear to me how I am supposed to respond to this heightened alert, or what local police forces are going to do differently in response. I'm sure many Americans feel the same. It strikes me as far more of a PR move than any real effort to enhance our security. Perhaps I'm cynical, but it doesn't seem to do any good. The pressure has been on Tom Ridge since day one to show some results, and I don't think he has as yet. In part, that is why the President had to give in, and make Homeland Security a real agency proposal, not just an office in the White House with 100 odd staffers. I have a lot of sympathy for Ridge--he was given an impossible task, with inadequate resources and immense expectations.

Annandale, Va.: I have a question not so much about governmental institutions but about retail politics. It appears to me that it would be extrememly difficult, if not impossible, for a candidate to appear less than zealous in support of continued or increased military action by the U.S. -- somewhere, against someone. In this atmosphere, how likely is it that Congress will be able to remain independent of the administration in any debate over miltary action that might arise?

Jeremy D. Mayer: Historically, Congress defers to the president in crisis. This is a pattern dating back to before the Civil War. There are several reasons for this:

Constitutionally, the president is commander in chief, and chief diplomat. When military matters and foreign affairs dominate the agenda, the president has more power. The Founders anticipated the need for "energy in the executive" particularly in response to rapidly developing crises.

Also, the president has more information and expertise in these questions. There are members of Congress who know more about agriculture policy than most bureaucrats in the Ag Dept! The same is true of a number of policy areas. But few members of Congress have a longstanding interest in foreign affairs or prior expertise in it (There are exceptions, including Porter Goss, Richard Lugar, Dick Shelby, John Warner, and others) But the incentive for a member to develop expertise in foreign affairs is minimal. Why? Because most voters in Congressional elections don't give a damn about foreign policy. And as political scientist David Mayhew argued in the 70s, the prime directive of almost all members is reelection.

Finally, there are examples of members of Congress who stood up to a tide of public opinion and presidential pressure and resisted the call to war. Senator Rankin in 1941 was the only member to vote against war with Japan (she also opposed WW I). Senators Gruening and Morse voted against the Gulf of TOnkin Resolution that gave LBJ the greenlight to escalate in Vietnam. All three lost elections shortly thereafter or chose not to run. Even though Gruening and Morse were proven correct (in that LBJ and the military lied about the "attack" by North Vietnam that prompted the resolution) it did not lead to long Congressional careers. The best strategy for a cautious Congressman or woman right now is to mildly endorse the president, as you suggest.

The biggest issue, for me, though, is the suggestion by the president's lawyers that he doesn't need Congressional authorization to launch a premptive unilateral attack on Iraq. That would be a fundamental alteration of the balance of power, and in my opinion, a violation of the Constitution. Some conservative legal scholars and many liberals agree. Even with Vietnam and Korea, there were either treaty obligations or Congressional resolutions that supported the actions. Discounting our many military actions of a relatively minor size in this hemisphere, there are few examples of presidents initiating large scale hostilities without Congressional assent.

Washington, D.C.: One of your government students here, what is to be made of the latest judiciary rulings against the government's aims? This goes against previous precedent of judicial deference.

Jeremy D. Mayer: An excellent question. Historically, the judiciary defers to the president in wartime. Many rulings that would have gone against the president in peace were won by previous presidents during war. This is true in speech cases, war tribunal cases, and even the infamous Korematsu case in which the court upheld the internment of Japanese Americans in concentration camps (after they were forced out of their homes and lost most of their possessions). The court said in that case, and in many others, that we, the court, do not have the expertise to judge whether the need justified the act. We trust the executive to do right.

So why have several federal courts, in particular the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, issued rulings challenging Ashcroft's behavior at Justice?

First, are we really at war? It's a funny war if we are. No draft, no more casualties since Afghanistan ended, no new taxes (all previous major wars involved a tax hike). In contrast, the major thing we have been asked to do in this war is keep on shopping to keep the economy going. That's kind of like asking a fish to swim--Americans do shopping like nobody else. So the judiciary may feel free to issue rulings against the executive because it is not really a war.

Also, the FISA Court's actions (the first time that ANY of thousands of warrant requests was denied, the first time it has issued a ruling to the public) come after 75 incidences of deception by the FBI and others that abused prior warrants (most or all happening under Reno's Justice Dept, not Ashcroft's).

Finally, none of these rulings are final. This Supreme Court has shown, shall we say, an amazingly positive attitude towards the current occupant of the White House. I would not be surprised if the final result is Ashcroft 4, Lower Courts Zero.

Washington, D.C.: In your opinion, how does a pre-emptive strike on Iraq conflict with the foundations and ideals of our democratic republic? Does your answer change if we act pursuant to a new UN Security Council Resolution?

Jeremy D. Mayer: America has not engaged in a major war that began with a pre-emptive surprise attack on another nation. In my opinion, doing so now, without UN support, will fundamentally alter our standing in the world community. We are already perceived as bullies by millions of citizens and dozens of governments around the globe. That number will grow if we do this.

Throughout American history, we have perceived ourselves as above the endless conflicts of Europe. Safe behind two oceans and surrounded by the comparatively weak and peaceful neighbors of Mexico and Canada, we have believed ourselves to be better than nations who engage in warfare for gain or empire. Woodrow Wilson even believed we were "The Christ of Nations" with a message of peace and democracy for the world. This perception did not always square with our actions in this hemisphere in the 19th and 20th century, and it surely did not square with some of the odious things we did in Africa, Asia, and even Europe during the Cold War, such as assassinations, government subversion for corporate gains, and election purchasing. Yet it is still a view widely shared by most Americans, and in many ways, it remains true. How many victors have been as generous in victory as the United States?

Thus, I fear that if we go after Iraq alone, not only will the world opinion indelibly stain us as bullies and aggressors, but we will also begin to alter our perception of ourselves. We may well become a more militaristic nation, something we have never been in the past (at least in terms of military values being widely adopted).

I strongly believe that a unilateral unprovoked attack on Iraq does not square with the ideals of our republic, its history, or its interests. If evidence emerges that Iraq was involved in 9-11, let's go after Saddam. I supported war in Afghanistan; we were attacked. What has changed to make an attack on Saddam so urgent now?

Gaithersburg, Md.:: What are some of the terrorist threats that we should be aware of? Has intelligence progressed forward instead of looking at retrospect as to what happened.
Have the code color warning systems worked in informing the public? Also, what can we citizens do?

Jeremy D. Mayer: One thing you shouldn't really worry about, in my opinion, is airline security. 9-11 was not a failure of security so much as a failure of doctrine. Let me explain. The passengers and crew of the first three flights did exactly what our security doctrine told them. When confronted by hijackers (even ones merely armed with box cutters) you do what they tell you. Everyone surely expected to land in Cuba, or Libya, or Afghanistan, and for negotiations to commence. By the time the 4th plane's passengers figured it out, the tactics of 9-11 were already outmoded, and a new doctrine was born--fight to preserve the cockpit. Even against terrorists armed with handguns, 80 passengers are not going to allow another plane to be turned into a missile. Thus, a lot of the billions we are spending on airline security is a waste (and those big piles of nail files and swiss army knives are a tribute to our desire to fight the last war). Remember, Al Qaeda has a pattern--they don't attack the same way twice. The next attack will be different.

I regret that I am not an expert in anti-terrorism, so I cannot really comment on what the next attack is likely to be. There are a number of educated speculations that I've read, including attacks on nuclear facilities.

I don't believe the color coded warning systems have done diddly squat (see above answer).

I'm afraid there is little that citizens can do to combat terrorist threats. The Attorney General has asked all of us to be alert, and to report suspicious persons and happenings. Beyond that, there is little direct action to take. I would however, make a suggestion for an indirect approach. America gives very little in foreign aid to alleviate poverty around the world, particularly once you remove Israel and Egypt from the numbers (and truly, Israel is among the richest nations on earth, and aid to Israel should not count as aid to the poor at all). When I say very little, I mean as a percent of GNP or a percent of government spending. Almost every European nation, even those far poorer than we are, does much better in terms of helping the world's poor. America's strength is in its private charities. We do a great deal through them. So if you want to address the causes of terrorism indirectly, think about donating to an organization building schools in Pakistan, or supporting development in the West Bank. Young people in either place are often without hope or chances. Suicide bombing makes a lot more sense when you have no future. Every American can do a little bit to make suicide bombing less appealing. That may not be the type of direct action you were looking for, but it is the only thing an individual American can do to fight terrorism.

Washington, D.C.: What has changed in Iraq? You're familiar with weapons of mass destruction, right?

Under your logic, we should only attack if we've been attacked first. So should we sit back and wait until Saddam fully develops and uses these weapons?

Jeremy D. Mayer: I'm afraid I did not answer the earlier question more fully.
If the president has evidence that Iraq is on the verge of going nuclear, a strike to remove that threat is worth considering. However, there is little evidence that this is so, and surely no more now than there was a year ago. Let's recall what President Kennedy did in 1962 when he received intel reports that the Soviets were building missiles in Cuba. He debated the issues, and then sent Adlai Stevenson to the UN, armed to the teeth with evidence--photographs and intel reports that demonstrated, to world, that we were under threat. Even the French were convinced. He did this despite the risks of exposing our intel collection capabilities, because he realized that world opinion mattered. It still does today.

So if the evidence exists, put it on the table, and let's get a few partners.

Also, I should note that no one is suggesting (except Dick Cheney) that Saddam is even close to posing a threat to us. You have to deliver a warhead, and the idea that he could get a nuclear warhead into a suitcase is a fantasy at this point. If he had a crude nuke, he would be a threat to Israel and his neighbors. Not to us.

Finally, we know this about Saddam--he is the ultimate survivor. He has ruled over a "fictional" nation (Iraq was created by colonialism, and is held together only by extreme brutality--it is actually three countries, Kurdish, Shiite, and Sunni, and the three groups hate each other) in a very dangerous part of the world for decades. He has survived six coup attempts in just the years since the Gulf War. He knows that to attack us, or to attack Israel, would immediately mean an end to his life, his country, and his Baath Party. He's a dictator, a mass killer without conscience, but he has also shown that he can be deterred. We let him know through back channels that if he used chemical or biological weapons against us or Israel in the Gulf War, we would obliterate him. He didn't. The only way he launches a suicidal assault on Israel or us (and he really can't get to us) is if he thinks we are going to take him out anyway. So again, why now? Why alone?

Jeremy D. Mayer: Thanks to everyone who wrote in. I very much enjoyed the conversation. I hope the nation as a whole uses the occasion of the 9-11 remembrance to not only mourn what was lost, and celebrate what was revealed about the American character, but also to ponder what the effects have been on our political system. I don't think all of the changes have been positive, nor are all the directions that public opinion is being led positive ones. As I argue in the conclusion of my little book, there are three possible scenarios for America's future: a Return to Normalcy, the creation of a Fortress America--isolated and heavily armed, with fewer liberties, or an Exponentional Globalism, in which America builds a new and more unified world on the sacred space of Ground Zero. Remember, the terrorists attacked the World Trade Center, and interred the remains of citizens of more than 80 nations, not just Americans. I don't know which scenario is more likely, but it is a debate worth having.

Thanks for reading and taking part. JDM

washingtonpost.com:

That wraps up today's show. Thanks to everyone who joined the discussion.

Stay tuned to Live Online:

One Year Later: Vernon Loeb on National Defense at 1 p.m. ET
Sally Squires: The Lean Plate Club at 1 p.m. ET
One Year Later: Presidential Adviser Karen Hughes at 1 p.m. ET
One Year Later: State Dept. on Global Diplomacy at 4 p.m. ET
Marc Fisher: 2002 Election Special at 10 p.m. ET

Did you know that you can follow more than one Live Online discussion at the same time? Just open another browser window and toggle back and forth between discussions! And, if you miss one, catch up with the Live Online transcripts.

Keep up with the latest in news, sports, politics and entertainment with washingtonpost.com e-mail newsletters.

NEW! Personalize your Post with mywashingtonpost.com. Get customized news, traffic, weather and more.

   |      |