The dangers of performative virtue in the public square

Sometimes, small events raise important issues. A recent spat between Pennsylvania Sen. John Fetterman and his communications director raises several: Should a subordinate ever publicly dissent, and why? When is it acceptable? How do generational politics affect this?
Here’s what happened: Fetterman was interviewed by Peter Savodnik of The Free Press and discussed how his stance on Israel changed his standing with Democrats. Afterwards, Carrie Adams told Savodnik in a phone call that she doesn’t agree with her boss, suggesting that Fetterman’s views aren’t as “nuanced” as her generation’s.
“I have a sense that his international views are a lot less nuanced than my generation, because when he was growing up, it was might makes right, and for my generation and younger who, of course, are the ones protesting this, they have a much more nuanced view of the region,” Adams said, per The Free Press.
Savodnik said, in 26 years of political reporting, he’d never heard a staffer say something like that. And I can confirm: As a former communications director for a congressman, I’d never talk to a reporter like that.
Ironically, Adams has a master’s degree in crisis communications. She might need it.
Gainsaying Fetterman’s views directly contradicts Adams’s job, which is to communicate to the public the senator’s actions and views. Claiming that younger generations have a “more nuanced” view of the Middle East, and that those who disagree believe “might makes right,” is doubly flawed: It assumes the reasoning behind the older generations’ views, and assumes that younger Americans’ views are “nuanced.”
Only someone deeply inside their own bubble can believe that most people who favor Israel prosecuting its war against Hamas, a genocidal terrorist organization that murdered and kidnapped over 1,400 people on Oct. 7, do so because “might makes right.” Ghaith al-Omari, a former negotiator for the Palestinian Authority, makes the case that Hamas must be defeated to deny its ability to influence politics through violence and to have any hope of a two-state solution.
Most people who disagree with Adams have some version of al-Omari’s views, including Fetterman, who said during a trip to Israel, “There will never be any meaningful peace as long as Hamas is allowed to occupy (Gaza) … and Gaza will need to be rebuilt. And how could anybody think that’s possible if that organization is there?”
While too many media organizations uncritically cite Hamas-provided casualty figures, there is no real disagreement that innocent Gazans are dying. The real debates are the ratio of innocent Gazans to Hamas militants, who are responsible for the deaths of innocents, and what can be done to minimize them, weighed against the goal of preventing further atrocities by Hamas.
Adams is also wrong to paint this debate as generational. True, younger people tend to have less rosy views of Israel, but that does not make their view more nuanced. Also, Israel’s loudest critics include octogenarians like Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders.
However, she does, inadvertently, make a point: Separating herself from her boss, to a reporter, suggests she values her “brand” over her loyalty to Fetterman. Yuval Levin, a historian and political analyst, has rightly observed, “We now think of institutions less as formative and more as performative, less as molds of our character and behavior, and more as platforms for us to stand on and be seen.” This troubling phenomena skews younger.
But Adams is not an inexperienced kid. She previously worked for Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, former Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and Facebook’s parent company Meta. Adams seems to see herself more as a part of the wider Democratic establishment, which, while still broadly pro-Israel, is increasingly beholden to Israel-skeptic forces that Fetterman has openly scorned. In other words, this is a classic principal/agent problem, which is not new to politics, but has been especially acute in recent years. Ask former Vice President Mike Pence, who certified Joe Biden’s victory contrary to the wishes of Donald Trump. While the vice president is an independent constitutional officer, Pence broke from the centuries-old practice of vice presidents supporting the president, no matter what. Pence correctly claims that he had a higher responsibility, to the Constitution. That’s something no official should ever overlook.
Another fascinating example of public disagreement occurred in 1971. A career diplomat named Archer Blood, the head of the consulate in East Pakistan (now Bangladesh), authorized the first-ever dissent cable, a system which allowed lower-level State Department functionaries to message the secretary directly. This telegram, signed by many on the ground, stated that “Our government has failed to denounce atrocities” and has “chosen not to intervene, even morally, with regard to atrocities committed as part of the ongoing Bengali genocide, perpetrated by the Pakistani military and their allied radical group such as Jamaat-e-Islami.”
The cable did leak to the press, and the Nixon White House suspected it was deliberate, but there is no evidence that Blood or his associates were responsible. Rather than performative dissent, the “Blood telegram” was a firsthand report of ongoing events that harmed U.S. interests and values. In 2022, Blood’s actions were celebrated by the Bureau of South and Central Asian Affairs on the 50th anniversary of America’s relationship with Bangladesh.
Still, there were consequences. While civil servant rules kept him from being fired, Blood’s career stalled. Blood was willing to live with it. “He never expressed any bitterness about the treatment meted out to him,” one associate explained.
Last November, more than 500 Biden political appointees registered dissent on the subject of Gaza in an intentionally public letter. But their dissents remain different in kind from Blood’s. The political appointees were either junior or had little expertise on the topic, and they were not offering on-the-ground expert views, unlike Blood’s crew, whose expertise and observations were unquestionable. Offering his expertise, of course, is why Blood was there. That cannot be said of Adams, who appears to have no special knowledge of foreign policy or Gaza.
A subordinate should have moral lines over which they would choose to quit rather than cross. There are even times where rank insubordination can be condoned. But Adams has demonstrated the opposite of the examples of Pence and Blood. Her action made no difference, was self-aggrandizing, was backed by no law or policy, and brought nothing new to the debate.
As of this writing, Fetterman has not fired Adams. If he doesn’t, it’s an act of grace. Adams has shown how not to handle yourself as a subordinate, and how not to think about your own importance. I hope she, and the rest of us, learn from her mistake.
Cliff Smith is a lawyer and a former congressional staffer. He lives in Washington, D.C., where he works on national security-related issues. His views are his own.