When saying no to a president saves democracy

The Mueller report leaves a shadow over President Trump about possible obstruction of justice, but it also offers insights on how acts of conscience can turn events.

Reuters
In a June 2018 photo, then-White House Counsel Don McGahn sits behind President Trump during a cabinet meeting at the White House.

Few Americans will read the public portions of special counsel Robert Mueller’s report. That’s OK, as the two main conclusions are well known: The Trump campaign did not collude with Russia to influence the 2016 election, and yet President Donald Trump tried to influence the investigation. Congress will now decide if the president did obstruct justice. A few parts of the report, however, offer a lesson on how individual acts of conscience can make a big difference in a democracy.

Mr. Mueller praises some of those around Mr. Trump for standing up for rule of law. “The President’s efforts to influence the investigation were mostly unsuccessful, but that is largely because the persons who surrounded the President declined to carry out orders or accede to his requests,” Mr. Mueller wrote.

A key person was former White House counsel Donald McGahn (pronounced “McGann”). Twice the president told him to fire the special prosecutor, and twice Mr. McGahn refused, perhaps saving American democracy from a constitutional crisis. Mr. Mueller found Mr. McGahn, who resigned last October, to be “a credible witness with no motive to lie or exaggerate given the position he held in the White House.”

It is not easy to say no to an American president. One famous case occurred in 1980 when Secretary of State Cyrus Vance opposed President Jimmy Carter’s military operation in Iran to rescue American hostages. Mr. Vance resigned, and the operation failed as he forewarned.

In such cases, it takes moral courage for a public servant to act on principle, such as the ideal that justice should be nonpolitical. Mr. McGahn’s actions are an echo of one taken by Elliot Richardson, the attorney general who in 1973 refused President Richard Nixon’s order to fire a special prosecutor probing the Watergate scandal.

“The more I thought about it,” Mr. Richardson wrote later, “the clearer it seemed to me that public confidence in the investigation would depend on its being independent not only in fact but in appearance.” In 1998 he won the Presidential Medal of Freedom.

Mr. McGahn’s example of moral independence is particularly useful as the United States continues to battle a core reason for the Mueller probe: Russian attempts to persuade Americans of false stories via social media. Defying such propaganda requires an inner compass to discover what is true and to act on it. Voters, like public servants, have a duty beyond allegiance to a person or to accepting what they read online. They must live by the values that bind a democratic society. Sometimes that means saying no.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.