Loyal to a Fault? The Presidency and Fealty's Limits
A president's foreign policy aides have a moral commitment to their chief, but as the Clinton sex scandal shows, there are limits. Loyalty must be a two-way street.
Theodore C. Sorensen is a Senior Partner at Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison and was Special Counsel to President Kennedy. His books include Kennedy.
Anyone personally appointed by the president of the United States to a position of high trust and responsibility in foreign and defense policy swears to uphold the Constitution and laws of the United States, has the FBI confirm his or her patriotism, and accepts a good-faith obligation as a public servant to serve the interests of the American people. But that is not all. Senior appointments entail an obligation of loyalty to the president who appointed you. That is not the same as unlimited allegiance, much less subservient obedience or blind faith. It does not exclude other obligations to Congress, the taxpayers, or one's department. But it is an obligation, nevertheless -- one that, once accepted, should not be lightly abandoned.
This charge is more than a legal obligation arising out of an employer-employee relationship. It is even more than loyalty to an impersonal administration or "team," though that may well be part of it. Conversely, it is more than a matter of friendship, for it applies equally to those who have a close relationship with the president and those who do not. It is essentially a moral commitment to that president as president, to respect his leadership, reciprocate his confidence and trust, and faithfully support his final decisions, even -- or especially -- when they are under attack.
Questions about the meaning and limitations of loyalty to the president were raised anew by the recent legal and political imbroglio in Washington arising out of President Clinton's sexual misconduct. In a futile effort at concealment, he lied not only under oath and to the public but also to his cabinet and White House staff. His secretary of state, secretary of the treasury, and other top aides were in effect dispatched to repeat his denials to the news media, the grand jury investigating his activities, and representatives of foreign governments. Several months later, when the truth was out, their pain was palpable.
Yet not one appointee resigned. Reportedly, only one mildly rebuked the president. Several told others of their sense of betrayal, sorrow, shame, or anger over their forced grand jury appearances -- but almost never spoke publicly to the press. Some appointees were deemed "gullible" for believing him, "gutless" for not leaving him, or "foolishly loyal" for remaining silent. Yet former Clinton appointees who spoke negatively to the press about his actions were labeled "ungrateful and disloyal."
This is a premium article
You must be a Foreign Affairs subscriber to continue reading. If you are already a print subscriber, click here to activate your online access.
Log In
Buy PDF
Buy a premium PDF reprint of this article.Related
Overview of 'new agenda' possibilities in a "world of both unmatched opportunity and unprecedented opacity".
The Defense Department's new report on East Asia reads as if the Cold War is ongoing. For Japan, the report signals U.S. acceptance of its ruinous trade deficits. For other Asian nations, it signals the hollowness of American superpower pretensions. The report masks the failure of the Clinton administration's trade policy. By insisting Japan remain a U.S. protectorate, Washington encourages Tokyo's reactionaries. The real threat to Asian security is not China but U.S. distrust of Japan as a true ally. Cold War military power is irrelevant to the economic challenges posed by East Asia's dynamism. Someone should tell the Pentagon.
Unless the Clinton administration halts the slide of the dollar, the United States will forfeit the financial leadership it has enjoyed since World War II.
