Defending the International Order from . . .

Josh Marshall (again) identifies a significant dynamic in the current global environment, that the Trump Administration threatens the world order that the United States (with others) established in the wake of World War II:

The historic oddity of this situation points to a common dynamic Americans now face at home and abroad. Our partners in the international order we created - some of whom we conquered to make it possible - are now seeking to defend it from us. Let's say that again, Defend it from us. How do we now as loyal Americans look at the warnings of the French and the Germans, as well as the British and our other erstwhile allies' warnings? This is a complicated question which different people, depending on their professions and governmental responsibilities and personal dispositions, must answer in different ways. But we cannot ignore the fact that the American experiment is now in a kind of exile - taken refuge elsewhere - and the executive power of the American state now under a kind of, hopefully temporary, occupation.

Marshall suggests limits to the analogy of Nazi Germany, which dismantled the system that allowed it to come to power, and I won't repeat that here other than to recommend reading the post.

It seems to me there are a range of dangers here. One is the resiliency of American institutions in resisting the most destructive elements of this Administration. Congress as a whole does not seem interested in identifying and limited the potential damage, although some Republicans are in a position to do so. Senators John McCain and Lindsay Graham in particular come to and, but there are others who might join them: Lamar Alexander, Lisa Murkowski, Susan Collins includes. Note that the House of Representatives appears to be a wasteland, in this regard. Public opposition is not really an institution, per se, but active citizen opposition, and high disapproval rates may well help to motivate some members of Congress, particularly as the 2018 elections approach.

The resilience of international institutions is second concern. There are attacks by authoritarian-minded right wing movements throughout Europe. Hungary and Poland in particular are under such governments, and France and Germany have active groups seeking to capture enough votes to direct those governments. But even if these countries are able to overcome their own domestic concerns, there is an inter-national dynamic. Why should France or Germany ever really trust the United States again? The same goes for Baltic and Balkan nations. My fear is that some of the damage to the international world order may thus be permanent.

If this is correct, then we will need to think about what a real multi-polar world will look like. The United States will not fade into irrelevancy, if only due to the size of our economy and the strength of our military. But any moral authority will be diminished, and other countries may be wary of depending on the United States. A slightly different dynamic holds in East Asia, where China is positioned to rival United States projections of power. Japan, South Korea, Australia, and others will have to negotiate this dynamic. The European dynamic does not yet present an alternative single power as a rival. As much as Russia would like to be just that, it has the military power, but not the economy to do so.

Josh Marshall of Talking Points Memo has an interesting posting today regarding concern over leaks by Federal intelligence agencies. He identifies a significant problem, which is the challenge to democracy when an intelligence agency leaks information to undermine siting political leaders. He writes:

The idea that the nation's intelligence and law enforcement agencies may be taking it upon themselves to overturn or disrupt the results of a national election cuts to the heart of the legitimacy and existence of our government. In early January, there were reports out of Israel that US intelligence officials had warned their Israeli counterparts against sharing certain intelligence with the United States under President Trump for fear the information could be passed on to Russia and from Russia on to Iran. This is extremely dangerous ground. As a purely constitutional matter, as unfortunate as it may be, if the President decides he wants to share information with Russia, that is a call which his election gives him the power and authority to make. Of course, Presidents can also be impeached. But the President also doesn't have to tell anyone what he's done, certainly no one who would have the power to impeach him. As you can see, there are some situations which our constitutional structure doesn't provide easy remedies for.

A bit later he asserts: 

 And that brings us to the most important part of this whole drama. The things that are being leaked are specific facts that are highly newsworthy and highly disturbing. They're not stories of sexual peccadillos or things that are politically damaging but not fundamentally relevant to the work of government. They're not vague subjective judgments about 'the military' or 'the intelligence community' not believing the president is up to the job or loyal. They're also specific. They are things which clearly should be investigated and which the public should know about. Indeed, the leaks seem to be driven by the leakers' belief that these issues should be investigated and mainly are not.

And:

In any case, this is dangerous ground, on every front. We are on numerous fronts in an unprecedented and perilous situation. No government likes leaks. Sometimes leaks are illegal. This is something that can be addressed on its own. The key here is the substance of what we're learning. It speaks for itself. That's why it's been so damaging. Even Republicans, who have been remarkably willing to give Trump a pass on virtually anything as long as he will sign key legislation, have been unable to ignore this. This is no 'political assassination'. That is a ridiculous and preposterous claim. The facts we are learning speak for themselves. When leaks are this damaging and this tied to the fundamental operations of government, it's not about the leaks or the motives. It's about what we're learning and what we need to know. 

 These are important considerations, and I am not sure at the moment where I stand on them. But Josh Marshall it seems to me is asking us to be practical: there are good leaks and there are bad leaks. A leak done to disclose information that would help preserve the system of government is a good leak. Note the judgment call. It is akin to Theodore Roosevelt asserting that there are good corporations and bad corporations. TR himself would decide which are good and which are bad. What if a government worker is convinced disclosure would bolster our system of Democracy, but was in fact misguided in this assessment. Arguably, the Snowden disclosures are of this sort. And I suppose though Snowden took it upon himself, he might have been mistaken on a number of particulars.

That we are at such a point is both troubling and fascinating.