After President Trump’s regrettable performance during the Helsinki summit, when he chose to take Russian President Vladimir Putin’s word over that of his own intelligence chiefs, some of the people working for him may have caught themselves questioning their loyalties.
“Had they sworn to serve the president or the American people?” they may have thought. At one time or another, every public servant has faced this question. The question is as old as public service itself.
Five hundred years ago, Renaissance writers Niccolo Machiavelli and Baldassare Castiglione argued opposing sides of the question of loyalty in two works that would shape for centuries the relationships between political leaders and their advisers. These works take on a special resonance after Helsinki.
In The Prince, Machiavelli wrote that an adviser’s only purpose was to serve his master. His or her responsibility to the public is an after-thought — if it was thought of at all. To Machiavelli’s mind, the prince knows what is best for the people, and it is the adviser’s duty to fall in line with his wishes. Loyalty to the state means loyalty to the prince.
By contrast, Castiglione, author of The Courtier, a book written from the adviser’s perspective, believed that all political leaders are by nature fatally flawed and it is the adviser’s duty to guide them, not just for the leader’s sake, but for the sake of the public as well. Castiglione cautioned his readers to be ever mindful of the public’s welfare, because the prince surely would not be. Castiglione pointed to something nobler than the focus on personal ambition that Machiavelli espoused.
Almost from the beginning of President Trump’s term in office, there have been calls among the media and the public for the resignation of senior members of his administration on matters of principle. In the wake of the Helsinki debacle, the secretaries of State and Homeland Security and the directors of the CIA and National Security Council have been urged to leave in response to what some are calling the treasonous conduct of the president.
And it’s not just the administration officials who are questioning their loyalties. The chairman of the Belmont County Republican Party in Ohio abruptly resigned on Monday citing his lack of faith in the president’s commitment to the nation.
Those men and women in the federal workforce, who are struggling with whether to continue as public servants, may want to consider the life and example set by the patron saint of government employees everywhere: George C. Marshall.
If his name is unfamiliar, a quick Google search will reveal him as perhaps the most revered American on the planet in the 1940s and 1950s. Marshall was a hero to former Secretary of State Colin Powell who kept a portrait of Marshall within his eyesight at the department to remind him of the gold standard of public service. The depth of Marshall’s sense of duty and commitment to the nation made him a living legend. During his own birthday party, President Harry S. Truman had to fight back tears during remarks about Marshall’s commitment to service. But the great Marshall struggled with the question of loyalty too.
During one such occurrence in 1948, Marshall considered resigning when Truman seemingly placed politics above the national interest with his controversial decision to recognize the new state of Israel.
Marshall was convinced that there was no compelling reason other than politics for Truman to support the Israelis when U.S. allies and the United Nations were counseling neutrality. He believed supporting Israel would cause reverberating negative historical consequences for the U.S. well into the future and threatened to oppose Truman in the upcoming election if he chose to follow through with his decision. But in the end, Marshall examined his conscience and chose to support the president because he believed doing so was in the best interest of the country.
His support was not about loyalty to Truman, nor was it about loyalty to our allies or even about the turf battle he was fighting with the president’s political adviser Clark Clifford, who was the strongest advocate for supporting Israel. Marshall’s thoughts were only about the welfare of the American people. He believed he could be more beneficial to his nation working from inside the government, helping to steer events, rather than outside, so he stayed. And, in light of such successful endeavors as the Marshall Plan, which bears his name, one can argue that the world is a better place for his decision to stay.
It is for his unwavering loyalty to the people of this nation that Marshall endures today as a shining example of a model public servant. His life and work are a fitting guide to those who are struggling with the question of what it means to be loyal in the age of Trump.
K. Ward Cummings (email: [email protected], website: kwardcummings.com, Twitter: @kwardcummings) is a former senior congressional adviser and the author of Partner to Power: The Secret World of Presidents and their Most Trusted Advisers.
