The U.S. intelligence community is charged with overseeing the country’s expansive network of spy agencies, providing timely and relevant information to government officials, and, apparently, speaking truth to power.
The exit of National Intelligence Director Dan Coats over the weekend prompted a wave of outcry from Democrats who saw the former senator as an establishment pillar and one of the last Trump administration officials willing to contradict the president. The president’s nominated replacement, Trump loyalist Rep. John Ratcliffe, has only confirmed the Democratic belief that Trump is trying to hijack the government from the inside out. This aside, one particular phrase has continued to appear in the Democrats’ varied statements for Coats and against Ratcliffe.
“From day one, Trump has made his disdain for the intelligence community clear,” presidential hopeful Sen. Elizabeth Warren wrote on Twitter. “Our Director of National Intelligence should be above partisan politics, speak truth to power, and resist Trump’s abuses of authority.
“The mission of the intelligence community is to speak truth to power. As DNI, Dan Coats stayed true to that mission,” Democratic Sen. Mark Warner of Virginia said.
Similarly, CNN national security analyst Shawn Turner, who served in the intelligence community under the Obama administration, said: “Coats has done a phenomenal job as director of national intelligence. [He] spoke truth to power,” oftentimes putting “him at odds with the president.”
House Intelligence Chairman Adam Schiff: “[Coats] has been great advocate for men and women of the Intelligence Community, and a good leader,” he said. “Most important, he has had the independence and strength to speak truth to power.”
The “speak truth to power” catchphrase has bounced around the political amphitheater for years, and few people who hear it, let alone use it, know what it means. The cliché is supposed to represent a nonviolent tactic political dissidents use to oppose the actions or philosophy of a government they regard as oppressive. Tell them how it is, don’t remain silent in the face of tyranny!
It’s no wonder Democrats have employed the phrase in praise of Coats, who remained independent from Trump’s agenda, defended intelligence agencies amid the president’s constant criticism, and questioned his dealings with foreign powers like Russia, North Korea, and Iran.
But Coats wasn’t a dissident, though he was indeed a stable and honorable intelligence director. Accountability and good governance depend on those willing to challenge the guys in charge: that’s what the system of checks and balances is all about. But this also depends on prudence and moderation. Former FBI Director James Comey is a perfect example of accountability gone wrong. Coats, on the other hand, played his role well. He delivered “unvarnished hard truths” to both the White House and Congress, as Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell put it, while keeping his skirmishes with the president out of the public eye.
Democrats seem to agree. But I can’t help but wonder if Coats’ “truth” was true only because it was, at times, said in opposition to Trump. Had he included immigration on a list of national security concerns when he spoke to lawmakers in January, would Democrats still consider Coats a hero? Had Coats not been critical of Trump’s summit with Russian President Vladimir Putin, would they still thank him? Or would they have dismissed him as they now dismiss Ratcliffe?
As is so often the case in politics, Democrats are all for speaking truth to power as long as it fits the narrative they’re selling. Republicans are guilty of the same partisan sin, they’re just better at differentiating their talking points. Thankfully, Dan Coats wasn’t interested in a political agenda. Let’s hope Ratcliffe isn’t, either.
