Jim Comey has castigated Donald Trump for demanding loyalty. He initially reported that when the president asked for this, he replied that he would give honesty. We now know from Comey’s memoranda that he agreed to provide “honest loyalty.”
My question is why was it ever impermissible for Trump to ask a subordinate for loyalty. Shouldn’t underlings be trustworthy? Shouldn’t they carry out their assigned roles? In most cases, shouldn’t they do what their bosses ask, without seeking to sabotage them?
No doubt, blind loyalty is a problem. We don’t want people to be good Nazis who follow every order they are given. If some mandates are illegal—or immoral—the proper course may be to disobey. In some instances, it may even be to resign.
But was this the case with Trump and Comey? Did the president ask the Director of the FBI to violate his oath of office? Did he, for instance, direct him to obstruct justice. Such evidence as we have suggests that he did not.
So why did Comey bridle at the request? We have learned that he was loyal to Attorney General Lynch. At her request, he refrained from saying that Hillary Clinton was being investigated. He instead referred to this as “a matter.” Although he later claimed this made him queasy, he loyally complied.
The same can be said about Comey’s conduct with regard to president Obama. Plainly Obama did not want to see Hillary indicted. His FBI chief got this message and faithfully oversaw a bogus investigation. The normal procedures were not observed to ensure that the next president would not be embarrassed.
In view of this conduct, the only thing that makes sense is that Comey did not want to be loyal to Trump per se. Indeed, he may well have participated in a cabal to oppose his election. In other words, Comey distrusted Trump’s politics and temperament. He believed him unworthy of loyalty—irrespective of any presidential action.
From Trump’s perspective, it made sense to worry about whether holdovers from the previous administration would carry out his policies. No government can operate if too many subordinates disobey instructions. He needed people who would be on his team.
As it happened, Trump was right to be concerned. Folks like Comey had loyalties that collided with their new boss’s policies. They were prepared to resist a change in administrative directions.
Loyalty may not be absolute. For example, it seldom makes sense for an underling to be loyal to a superior who is not loyal to him. But this was not the case with Comey and Trump. The rupture in trust was initiated by Comey. It was his negative attitude that started the downward spiral.
One of the most unfortunate aspects of this fiasco has been to disparage loyalty—and even imply that asking for it is an impeachable offence. No large organization can operate without loyalty; no society can remain intact in its absence.
I think in terms of the family. How can a marriage remain stable if husbands and wives are not loyal to one another? How can parents and children be mutually supportive if there is no loyalty between them? Could they trust each other well enough to work in harmony?
In many ways, this has become a society wide problem. It may be one of the reasons for the upsurge in divorce. It may also account for the epidemic in unwed parenthood. If people cannot commit to one another, that is, to be loyal to one another, how that they be confident of mutual assistance?
Disloyal husbands cheat on their wives. Disloyal parents belittle their children for non-existent infractions. So why wouldn’t disloyal FBI Directors tell lies or leak secrets? Without a predisposition to loyalty, people don’t have the internal controls to avoid betraying those who deserve cooperation.
At the moment, Democrats are in a full-on obstructionist mode. They even question whether they should approve a Secretary of State who might do a hated president’s bidding. Not the interests of the nation, not loyalty to its traditions, but self-interested partisanship guides their decisions.
This is a potential disaster in the making. If this trend continues, our national fragmentation will be irreversible. We will become a nation of selfish monads who are loyal only to ourselves.
Melvyn L. Fein, Ph.D.
Professor of Sociology
Kennesaw State University
No comments:
Post a Comment