Insights from Henry Kissinger

There was a time when Henry Kissinger dominated the news.  As Richard Nixon’s national security advisor and then as Secretary of State under Nixon and Gerald Ford, he was central to formulating and executing our foreign policy.  What is more, he had a well-earned reputation for expertise.

Kissinger was smart, and knowledgeable, and had a way of communicating with the media, that contributed to his personal power.  As an ardent student of history, he appreciated the need for an international balance of power and did his best to establish one.

Nonetheless, the historian Niall Ferguson has identified a conundrum at the heart of Kissinger’s political career.  How was a man, who started out as a scholar, able to rise to the summit of diplomatic power?  How did he manage to exercise as much executive influence as he did?

Ferguson points out that academics almost never hold high level government offices.   They are generally behind the scene advisors because they are usually terrible decision makers.  More often interested in getting every detail right, they dither when it comes time to choose.

Kissinger was an exception.  He loved to turn ideas into concrete policies.  He enjoyed wading in and getting his hands dirty in the nitty-gritty of political maneuvering.  One of the reasons was that he had no confidence in bureaucratic acumen.  As such, he did not trust careerists in the State Department.

According to Kissinger, bureaucrats fall in love with rules.  They value predictability so highly that they spin webs of regulations, which then tie everyone down.  Decisions do not get made because no one wants to challenge the status quo.  No one wants to lose his or her job by being too independent.

Paradoxically, this attitude has the opposite effect during negotiations.  Because bureaucrats seldom have principles, they take their cues about deal making from their opponents.  Rather than going into sessions knowing what they want, they attempt to discover what the other side is willing to give.

Kissinger possessed a more stable personal compass.  As a result, he was able to make choices on the spot.  He could size up events, zero in on potential opportunities, and make adjustments on the fly.  This enabled him to formulate significant changes, as they were required.

The upshot was that Kissinger relied more on networking than on hierarchical institutions.  He developed relationships in government and with foreign leaders that facilitated flexibility.  Because he knew those with whom he was dealing, he could achieve agreements based on trust.

Bureaucrats are typically less supple.  They may be good at political infighting, but are customarily more concerned with staying out of trouble than pioneering new ventures.  Their eye is on the next promotion, not necessarily the best interests of the organization.

We see this in most federal agencies, in huge corporations, and even on college campuses.  Bureaucrats are empire builders.  Their goal is apt to be increasing the number of their subordinates, rather than achieving the company's mission.

Cyril Parkinson told us that work expands to fill the time allotted to it.  He was thinking of government bureaucracies, where additional people doing less is regarded as a sign of success.  Obviously, the more underlings an administrator manages the more prestigious he must be.

When Donald Trump talks about draining the swamp, it is this morass of inefficiency he has in mind.  When he tells us that the State Department can make do with fewer employees, he is not trying to hobble the agency, but to improve its ability to function.

Bureaucrats always tell us that they need more help.  They always insist that they are understaffed and that making cuts will destroy morale and prevent crucial work from being completed.  These, however, are rationalizations.  They are not based upon facts, but careerist ambitions.

In the old Soviet Union, the Moscow based bureaucrats, who controlled the economy, believed they were smarter and more efficient than those whose tasks they planned.  In fact, they nearly brought the nation to a standstill.  The same could happen in the United States.

We therefore need less bureaucracy and more decentralization; fewer high priced bosses and more professionalized experts.  Kissinger was right—and so is Trump.

Melvyn L. Fein, Ph.D.

Professor of Sociology

Kennesaw State University