Disagreeing With Conventional D.C. Wisdom Isn’t A Crime

Disagreeing With Conventional D.C. Wisdom Isn’t A Crime

Democrats keep confusing "policy disagreements" with "an attack on democracy."
David Harsanyi
By

The New York Times recently reported that president Donald Trump has, on a number of occasions, contemplating withdrawing from NATO. This is an important issue for public debate and, ultimately, for elections. There is, however, no Constitutional amendment codifying a forever-alliance with select European nations. So if Trump decides to try and pull out of the alliance—and to this point, he’s done nothing to move in that direction—it would be well within his purview. Even if Trump’s sole reason for doing so was to placate Russia in hopes of building better relations with that nation, he’s engaged in neither high crime nor misdemeanor.

Some of us believe Trump is misguided to consider exiting the pact, but it’s become a matter of faith among many Democrats and Never Trumpers that the very act of disagreeing with their (often newly acquired) foreign policy positions is a crime against “democracy.” As one-time US Attorney Preet Bharara, a hero to the resistance for the valiant act of being fired, tweeted: “If true: Trump should immediately and publicly state his apparent wish to withdraw from NATO so he can be promptly impeached, convicted, and removed from office.”

Article of impeachment: 1 – The duly elected president of the United States holds opinions at odds with the conventional wisdom of the DC establishment.

As it happens, The New York Times also recently reported that the FBI “began investigating whether President Trump had been working on behalf of Russia against American interests” soon after he fired his subordinate, FBI Director James Comey. In other words, as far as we now know, the nation’s top law enforcement agency purportedly launched a counterintelligence investigation in part, or maybe in whole, because it deemed Trump’s firing of their boss unjustified, and his positions too favorable towards Russia and thus a threat to national security.

For starters, the idea that the president should be embroiled in an investigation prompted by his foreign policy positions is both dangerous and arguably unconstitutional.  We’ll soon know if there was any genuine evidence to substantiate such a remarkable move. If not, it would mean that the FBI engaged in an unprecedented attack on a duly elected president. It’s not the FBI’s job to set foreign policy.

After all, we have widely divergent ideas about what “American interests” look like. Which ones is the FBI going to treat as potentially criminal? No one contemplated investigating or impeaching Barack Obama after he was caught on a hot mic assuring Putin’s puppet that he was lying to the American electorate and would have “more flexibility” to acquiesce to Russia’s demands on NATO missile defense in Europe. If pliancy towards illiberal regimes is a red flag, the obsequiousness of Obama administration officials toward the American-killing Islamic regime in Iran (and its terrorist proxies) should have sounded alarms at the FBI.

Moreover, in the real world, Trump has taken the same kind of impulsive and inconsistent positions on Russia as he’s taken on any number of issues. On the policy front, there’s an argument that he’s been at least as tough on Russia than the previous two administrations.

Voters knew these were his positions before they voted. Everyone understood that Trump would be flattering Putin – which isn’t exactly new for American presidents. Everyone knew that Trump was skeptical about the usefulness of NATO. His positions were widely covered. During the presidential campaign, Trump went on a long rant about how antiquated and expensive the alliance had gotten: “NATO was set up at a different time,” Trump said. “NATO was set up when we were a richer country. We’re not a rich country anymore.”

We’re not a rich country anymore, we’re still the richest. That certainly doesn’t mean debating the usefulness and cost of NATO is an attack on “democracy” – a catch-all for conventional bipartisan policies. A 2018 Reuters poll, conducted after Trump got back from haranguing Europeans, found that 49 percent of American voters believe that the United States shouldn’t be required to defend NATO allies from attack if Europeans didn’t contribute more to their defense. Anyway, the public is shocked about the prospects of backing out of NATO (and did I mention, I’m skeptical that we’re ever going to withdraw) then voters can let their displeasure be known through elections, not by deputizing law enforcement agencies.

Of course, Congress—the same Congress that abdicated its responsibility on foreign policy long ago–can impeach and remove the president for any reasons it sees fit. Yet, there should be two debates: One regarding the president’s positions and another about his disposition and legality of his actions. Yet, Trump’s obsessed adversaries can’t help but conflate those things to create an all-encompassing overwrought case that ends up making everything about one man. They have few ethical or constitutional qualms about enlisting every institution to undo the 2016 election. And, in the end, no one is really talking about NATO, are they?  They’re just talking about Trump.

David Harsanyi is a Senior Editor at The Federalist. He is the author of the book, First Freedom: A Ride Through America's Enduring History with the Gun, From the Revolution to Today. Follow him on Twitter.

Copyright © 2019 The Federalist, a wholly independent division of FDRLST Media, All Rights Reserved.