Sometimes small events raise important questions. A recent dispute between Pennsylvania Senator John Fetterman and his communications director raises several questions: Should a subordinate ever publicly disagree, and why? When is that acceptable? How does 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. Afterward, Carrie Adams told Savodnik in a phone call that she disagreed with her boss, suggesting that Fetterman’s views were not as “nuanced” as those of her generation.
“I feel like his international views are much less nuanced than those of my generation because when he was growing up it was the mightiest thing in the world, and my generation and the younger ones, who are of course the ones protesting against that, have a much more nuanced view of the region,” Adams said, according to The Free Press.
Savodnik said he had never heard a staffer say such a thing in 26 years as a political journalist. And I can attest to that: As a former communications director for a member of Congress, I would never speak to a reporter like that.
Ironically, Adams has a master’s degree in crisis communications. She might need it.
Contradicting Fetterman’s views directly contradicts Adams’s job of communicating the Senator’s actions and views to the public. The claim that younger generations have a more “nuanced” view of the Middle East and that those who disagree believe in “the law of the jungle” is false on two counts: It presupposes the reasoning behind the views of older generations and presupposes that the views of younger Americans are more “nuanced.”
Only someone deep in their own bubble can believe that most people who support Israel’s war against Hamas, a genocidal terrorist organization that murdered and kidnapped over 1,400 people on October 7, do so because “might is right.” Ghaith al-Omari, a former Palestinian Authority negotiator, argues that Hamas must be defeated to deny it the ability to influence politics through violence and any hope of a two-state solution.
Most people who disagree with Adams share al-Omari’s views in some form, including Fetterman, who said during a trip to Israel: “As long as Hamas occupies Gaza, there will never be real peace… and Gaza must be rebuilt. And how can anyone believe that is possible when this organization is there?”
Although too many media outlets uncritically cite casualty figures provided by Hamas, there is no real dispute that innocent Gazans are dying. The real debates revolve around the ratio of innocent Gazans to Hamas militias responsible for innocent deaths, and what can be done to minimize this, balanced against the goal of preventing further Hamas atrocities.
Adams is also wrong when he portrays this debate as a generational one. Younger people tend to have less rosy views of Israel, but that does not make their views any more nuanced. Moreover, some of Israel’s most vocal critics include octogenarians like Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders.
But she inadvertently makes a point: by distancing herself from her boss to a reporter, she suggests that her “brand” is more important to her than her loyalty to Fetterman. As Yuval Levin, a historian and political analyst, rightly observed, “We now view institutions less as formative and more as performative, less as forms of our character and behavior and more as platforms on which we can stand and be seen.” This disturbing phenomenon affects younger people in particular.
But Adams is no greenhorn. She previously worked for Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Facebook’s parent company Meta. Adams seems to see herself more as part of the broader Democratic establishment, which, while still broadly pro-Israel, is increasingly beholden to Israel-skeptical forces that Fetterman has openly despised. In other words, this is a classic principal-agent problem that is not new in politics but has been particularly acute in recent years. Ask former Vice President Mike Pence, who certified Joe Biden’s victory against the wishes of Donald Trump. Although the vice president is an independent constitutional officer, Pence broke with the centuries-old practice of vice presidents supporting the president no matter what. Pence rightly claims that he has a higher responsibility to the Constitution. That is something no public official should ever overlook.
Another fascinating example of public dissent occurred in 1971. A career diplomat named Archer Blood, the head of the consulate in East Pakistan (now Bangladesh), authorized the first-ever dissent telegram, a system that allowed low-level State Department officials to send messages directly to the minister. This telegram, signed by many on the ground, stated: “Our government has failed to denounce atrocities” and has “decided not to intervene, even morally, in the atrocities being committed in the ongoing Bengali genocide perpetrated by the Pakistani military and its allied radical groups such as Jamaat-e-Islami.”
The telegram did indeed 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 a feigned dissent, the “Blood Telegram” was a firsthand account of ongoing events that were damaging to U.S. interests and values. In 2022, Blood’s actions were celebrated by the Bureau of South and Central Asian Affairs on the occasion of the 50th anniversary of America-Bangladesh relations.
Still, there were consequences. Although civil service regulations prevented him from being fired, Blood’s career stalled. Blood was willing to live with it. “He never expressed bitterness about the treatment he received,” one employee explained.
Last November, more than 500 Biden appointees expressed their dissent on the Gaza issue in a deliberately publicized letter. But their dissent was different in nature from Blood’s. The political appointees were either not as advanced or had little expertise on the issue, and they did not offer expert on-the-ground opinions, unlike Blood’s team, whose expertise and observations were unquestionable. Blood, of course, was there only to offer his expertise. The same cannot be said of Adams, who appears to have no special knowledge of foreign policy or Gaza.
A subordinate should have moral boundaries that he would rather abandon than cross. There are even cases where insubordination can be tolerated. But Adams proved the opposite of the examples of Pence and Blood. Her actions made no difference, were high-handed, were not supported by any law or policy, and brought nothing new to the debate.
As of this writing, Fetterman has not fired Adams. If he doesn’t, it will be an act of mercy. Adams has shown how not to act like 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 an attorney and former congressional staffer living in Washington, DC, where he covers national security issues. His views are his own.
