The Spoils System Returns, the Foreign Service Union Is Crushed, and Why the Next President Will Be Handicapped
Peter Mina (00:01.656)
Good afternoon. I’m Peter Mina, founder of the Mina firm, a civil rights and federal employment law firm in Washington, DC, as well as a former deputy officer for civil rights and civil liberties at the Department of Homeland Security, where I work to integrate civil rights and civil liberties protections in the department’s national security programs. And you are listening to the steady state sentinel from the steady state. We are facing an existential threat, growing autocracy in the United States.
The Steady State Sentinel is a place where we and our distinguished guests use our national security expertise to discuss and analyze the decisions and acts of this administration that feed that autocratic slide and threatened to supplant the pillars of our constitutional democracy. Today, we have the pleasure of talking with Eric Rubin, senior fellow with the democratic resilience program at the center for European policy analysis or SIPA and a member of the board of directors at the steady state.
Eric is a former career diplomat who served 38 years in the U S foreign service, attaining the rank of minister counselor before retiring in 2023. Uh, Eric began his career in 1985 as a political and human rights officer in Honduras. He later held key assignments in Ukraine, Russia, and Thailand, and served as us ambassadors of Bulgaria from 2016 to 2019. his ambassadorship, uh, Eric was elected president of the American foreign service association – the professional association and union representing America’s career diplomats, serving from 2019 to 2023. In recent years, Eric has emerged as one of the most forceful critics of the Trump administration’s reshaping of the state department, publishing detailed analyses of what he describes as the systematic dismantlement of a nonpartisan foreign service. Welcome to the program, Eric.
Eric Rubin (01:50.793)
Thank you very much, Peter. Glad to be here.
Peter Mina (01:54.222)
So I was wondering if we could start off with you describing a little bit about your current work at SIPA and in particular the Democratic Resilience Program.
Eric (02:03.541)
So SIPA is one of several part-time affiliations that I have. And I joined and was grateful to have the opportunity to join because I remain focused on and passionately committed to, I want to say completing the work of what was started at the end of the Cold War. But to some extent now we’re talking about saving the work that was started at the end of the Cold War. People forget that several hundred million people
achieved freedom and democracy in the early 1990s after living under totalitarian governments. And a lot of the initial enthusiasm, optimism, some would say excessive optimism has been replaced with a sense of really things going in the wrong direction. So one of the things I wanted to contribute to is since this is so much
part of my life’s work, the work I did in Ukraine and with Ukraine, the work I did in Russia, in Bulgaria, with all of that region, trying to do what I can to contribute to not just furthering it, but to some extent we’re looking at saving it. And the recent election result in Hungary is a very positive sign after many years of negative developments.
Peter Mina (03:25.708)
And to that end, unfortunately, we had an administration that supported the autocratic regime of, you know, Victor Orban with even the vice president going to campaign for him. And so with that as a backdrop, and you mentioned your many part-time jobs post retirement, I was wondering if maybe you could tell us a little bit about what led you at the beginning to a career in diplomacy and national security.
And how that sort of initial commitment has now motivated your work following your retirement from the state department.
Eric (03:58.709)
Certainly, so I got the international bug, I would call it, very early. My parents were big travelers and we went somewhere every summer when I was a kid and my brother was a kid. And then I did a bunch of exchange programs in France, in Israel, in the UK. And I really loved the experience of living overseas and doing that.
And when I was in college, had an advisor who had been in the Foreign Service and who also interestingly had worked for the CIA. And he said to me, I think you’d be a great fit for either of those careers. And I said, coming from the family I come from, the CIA is not an option. I could never explain that to my parents. My parents were fairly left of center. Let’s put it that way.
Um, but the foreign service sounds intriguing and to make a long story short, encouraged me to take the foreign service exam when I was a senior. And I did, and it took a few years. I had been doing journalism for most of my time in school all the way through college. And then my first job after college was as a reporter trainee at the New York times, which is where I met my wife the first week after graduation. And we’re together now after 43 years. So that was cool.
Peter Mina (05:22.946)
That’s amazing. Congratulations.
Eric (05:24.811)
But the journalism part didn’t really work out. I basically had the opportunity to take the Foreign Service exam. I was thinking of other opportunities like law school, which is certainly for my generation the default thing. If you don’t know what you want to do, you go to law school. But then I got in and that started a 38 year odyssey starting in 1985. And I’m very
Very grateful, I certainly have no regrets. It was an amazing, almost 40 years, but now we find ourselves in a very different place. And to some extent, what I’m doing now in multiple ways and with multiple organizations is trying to do what I can to help save my life’s work. And suffice it to say, I’m not alone in this, my colleagues aren’t, this is true of so many people, but my life’s work is…
under very serious threat.
Peter Mina (06:26.318)
Absolutely. And I think you’ve probably answered the question I’m about to ask you. given what you just said in terms of trying to protect and defend what you built over the course of a nearly 40-year career, are there other factors that at least contribute to that analysis? And what makes you actually be willing to step out and be an advocate for the career diplomatic corps?
as well as an outspoken critic of what the administration is doing. Because I think there are a lot of people, you know, with no judgment whatsoever, who, you know, might absolutely share your point of view, but for any number of reasons, are just afraid to come forward. You know, because they’re afraid of retribution, they’re afraid of what it might mean for their post government career. What drives you past all those fears? Speak out.
Eric (07:22.539)
Some of it is how I grew up. I I grew up with parents who were very involved in the civil rights movement. My mother was at the March on Washington with Dr. King in 1963. She was an official of the New York Urban League. I grew up going to Vietnam War moratorium marches wearing a black armband.
That was how I grew up, also very strong supporter of unions and unionism. I learned all the union songs, Which Side Are You On, The Ballad of Joe Hill, all of that as a kid. But beyond that, understand the fear because it’s real and it’s not just us. Senator Murkowski said, why are senators not standing up for what they believe in? And she said, because we’re afraid.
Peter Mina (08:08.349)
huh. Absolutely.
Eric (08:18.155)
You know, Governor Shapiro and his family almost died on Passover evening in the governor’s mansion. It’s not excessive to be afraid, but I think it’s make or break at this point. And I also passionately believe that despite our flaws and despite our mistakes, and certainly the Vietnam War and the Iraq War, in my opinion, were mistakes of the worst magnitude.
I really believe that the world without us is really going to be a scary place. And there’s no doubt in my mind that our current leadership wants it to be a world without American leadership. They want it to be a world where America makes money and individuals profit from dysfunction and war and all of that. But we’re actually at a point where it’s very real. NATO may not survive. The UN may not survive.
not hysterics, this is very real. So, you know, I just feel like I was very privileged. I had a great career. you know, and I could have stayed a few years longer, but 38 years was pretty great. But, you know, I achieved everything I had hoped to, but I feel like I had a lot of privilege and, you know, really need to give back. And I understand, and you know, my brother likes to say, I really don’t want to visit you in prison.
And, you know, once upon a time I would have said that’s an absurd thing to say, but I understand it’s not quite absurd anymore. But I’ve just decided to be all in and I’m not alone. There’s there a lot of us who just feel, you know, it’s not just about a profession. It’s not just about the conduct of diplomacy. It’s about America and the world. And, you know, our our optimism that really, to some extent, has been been dashed since the end of the Cold War after a lot of initial
Peter Mina (09:42.927)
Yeah.
Eric (10:12.8)
I would say enthusiasm and hopefulness.
Peter Mina (10:17.657)
Well, you you’ve mentioned, you know, obviously your amazing family history of advocacy and you mentioned, you know, union support. One of the things I wanted to touch on with you briefly is your role as president of ASSA, as well as and the unfortunate elimination of ASSA as a recognized union, as well as other unions around the federal government. And then to also juxtapose that with.
the rise of organizations like the Benjamin Franklin Foundation, and then some of these other Heritage Foundation affiliated groups that have really come after members of the Civil Service. And so how do you see preserving the, in your case, the Career Diplomatic Corps, sort of in the wake of all of the normal resources that would be there to support them, having been eliminated or at least significantly weakened?
Eric (11:16.521)
I think it’s important to start with the fact, and it is a fact in my opinion, that a lot of what has happened is completely illegal and completely contrary to legislation, in some cases to the Constitution. I mean, the fact that the State Department, the Foreign Service and the Civil Service were unionized in 1972
Peter Mina (11:26.028)
Absolutely.
Peter Mina (11:30.735)
Mm-hmm.
Eric (11:42.195)
was established in federal labor legislation in 1972 signed by President Nixon. And then in 1980, with the passage of the Foreign Service Act, it’s in that legislation as well. It’s not optional. Congress decided and the presidents in question, President Nixon and President Carter signed the legislation that we would have unions along with most of the rest of the federal government.
More importantly, though, I think what we’ve seen is a real erosion of the notion that employees, federal employees have agency, have the right to have opinions and share them. And what we’re seeing is the loss of advice. So traditionally, and this goes way back to the founding of the Foreign Service, the modern Foreign Service in 1924, but to some extent it goes back to
President Theodore Roosevelt before he became president when he was first head of the Civil Service Reform Commission in New York State and then head of the Federal Civil Service Reform Commission. And that came in the wake of the assassination of President Garfield by a job seeker, Charles Guiteau. And the idea was we want nonpartisan, nonpolitical people to give their best advice to the elected leaders. And the elected leaders get to decide as long as their decisions are legal.
But they need advice and having some expert advice is not a bad thing. And that concept is now being essentially eliminated. There’s no question from what I know of what the atmosphere is within the State Department. And of course, it’s not unique to the State Department. People are afraid to share dissenting opinions. No one is going to say to political bosses,
Peter Mina (13:11.521)
Exactly.
Eric (13:40.811)
I don’t think that’s the right answer. Can I tell you why? Which is how it’s supposed to work. And instead, they don’t dare do that. So, you know, we’ve seen this with this catastrophic war with Iran. You know, no one, with a few exceptions, it appears a few people, including General Kaine at one point, tried to tell President Trump that this was not a good idea, but that is not welcome. And the idea of having a nonpartisan, apolitical
Peter Mina (13:47.0)
Exactly.
Eric (14:10.891)
set of career federal employees who do their best to serve whatever administration is in office, you know, that’s been essentially destroyed. I just heard today that, you know, not only has AFSA, the American Foreign Services Association, along with the other federal unions, been illegally derecognized and kicked out of all contact and engagement with the State Department.
But we’re hearing from people that like new employees coming into the foreign service are afraid to join AFSA because they’re afraid of retaliation. And once upon a time, I would have thought that was impossible, but it’s not, it’s real. So I think what we’re risking is sliding back into the spoil system of the 1880s before we clean things up. And it was, know, interestingly, mostly the Republican party that cleaned things up.
because the Democratic Party was more corrupt, certainly Tammany Hall in New York and Boston and all the other places. That was Teddy Roosevelt and the Republicans. And the idea now that if you’re working for the federal government, you have to be a loyalist for whoever is in office is very frightening and is already hurting us enormously.
The last thing I’ll say in this is also the loss of expertise. So when we see these negotiations with Iran, we don’t have a single career diplomat. We don’t have a single career CIA analyst. We don’t have anybody who knows Iran, anybody who knows how to do diplomatic negotiations. And what a surprise, it’s failing. Correct, because, right, I think the Secretary of State is a smart guy. I don’t particularly endorse him.
Peter Mina (15:36.42)
Right.
Peter Mina (15:51.578)
Well, don’t even have the secretary of state. You have Jared Kushner and Steve Witkoff.
Eric (16:00.683)
but I think he knows that this is a loser and he’s staying away as much as he possibly can. But really, and you know, it has to be said, it’s a delicate issue, but our two negotiators with Iran are Zionist Bibi Netanyahu supporters who are opposed to a two state solution with the Palestinians. Would I pick them to be our negotiators with Iran? Of course not. I would pick.
know, experienced people like Bill Burns, who did negotiations in the Obama and Biden administrations. But nevermind, nobody’s asking me. I just feel very strongly that the idea that we don’t need expertise and knowledge and experience is leading us into really dangerous territory.
Peter Mina (16:50.51)
And I know that you have made that point across multiple administrations. Obviously it is not as, it hasn’t been as stark and as all encompassing, I would say as it is right now. but this isn’t a new idea. as a former civil servant myself, you know, I dealt with that tension firsthand. And, know, as a, I think about all the, you know, current and former, you know, government lawyers, for example.
who are now afraid of even to your point offering advice because anything that might be perceived as opposition is essentially equated with treason. And you are not long for the job that you’re in at that point.
Eric (17:36.267)
And the fact you mentioned the Benjamin Franklin Fellowship, and I think that has to be said, what people need to know is that the State Department had about 30 employee organizations, some of which were more than 50 years old. The first one was the African-American Employees Association going back to 1972. And they were all banned and derecognized by the State Department, along with three labor unions, including AFSA.
Peter Mina (17:41.102)
Huh? Absolutely.
Eric (18:06.007)
And yet the Benjamin Franklin Fellowship, which appears to be a Heritage Foundation project and appears to be funded by Heritage and their donors, has been given essentially official recognition and endorsement. The Deputy Secretary of State Chris Landau is a proud member and has repeatedly encouraged employees to join. And I somewhat controversially said it’s kind of like
the Communist Party in the Soviet Union, if you were a civil servant in a Soviet government ministry, you were not required to join the Communist Party. Most Soviet citizens were not members of the Communist Party, only a few million were. But if you wanted to get ahead, if you wanted to get promoted, if you aspired to high office, you damn well had to join, or at least apply to join the Communist Party. And that’s what we’re dealing with now.
this administration claims to be for meritocracy. It claims that DIA and wokeism were the opposite of meritocracy. But in reality, this is the opposite of meritocracy. They have basically said political loyalty is the most important and really the only factor in assignments and promotions. And it’s not just loyalty to a party, it’s loyalty to a person.
Peter Mina (19:12.165)
Exactly.
Eric (19:29.255)
a person who suffice it to say is rather controversial. And we just saw today the most extreme version of that with the announcement that the State Department will be putting President Trump’s angry visage portrait in the front of all US passports. There’s not another country in the world that has its leader on its passports, not the monarchies, not Vladimir Putin’s Russia.
Peter Mina (19:47.441)
Wow.
Eric (19:59.307)
It’s not done, but that’s what’s happening. so, you know, the messages you have to be, they use the term fidelity, but basically you have to be loyal to the absolute monarch or you’re not considered, I guess loyal is the word. you
Peter Mina (20:21.763)
Right. And absolute loyalty, in fact.
Eric (20:24.841)
Yeah, and we’ve never had this, but you know, more importantly, this can’t last. And the thing that I’m most concerned about is when the next president, whoever she or he is, takes office, they will not have a strong foreign service. They will not have senior expertise because most of our senior people have left or have been driven out. The same thing is true in the intelligence community. They’re going to be handicapped. If they want to know
how to interpret the Iranian leadership. The people who understand that are mostly going to be gone, will have left.
Peter Mina (21:02.235)
Right. Well, and even the FBI unit, you know, in the, you know, days leading up to the war that was that had Iran, you know, expertise in, you know, in Iran were all fired or reassigned. So actually, your comments lead me to a very natural segue, because you mentioned, you know, the next president, regardless of who, you know, she or he is and, you know, how they will be hamstrung.
Eric (21:10.763)
you
Eric (21:17.504)
Mm-hmm.
Peter Mina (21:31.78)
I wonder about, you know, sort of the the next generation of career diplomats and how they navigate a world where, you know, our allies have every reason, you know, not to trust, not to trust, excuse me, what this country says when, you know, even if we come out of this, you know, in twenty twenty eight or twenty twenty nine, why would anyone
you know, really put stock in the promises that the United States makes because because we’re just another election away from getting back to, where we are right now. What advice would you give to address that?
Eric (22:15.147)
Well, I mean, that’s a very important question. I remember when President Biden won the election in 2020 and basically said America is back. And I was talking to a lot of my diplomatic friends in Europe, in Australia and Japan. And their question was for how long? Unfortunately, in 2026, they won’t even ask that question anymore.
Peter Mina (22:27.494)
Mm-hmm.
Eric (22:44.779)
Even if we have a new president in 2029 who is internationalist and Atlanticist and, you as you said, they will not have confidence or trust that this will last and it’s gone. So that’s number one. The second piece, I think, is that we need diplomats and we need diplomacy and
When I joined the Foreign Service in 1985, we effectively ran the world with occasional interference from the Soviet Union. And I would put it that way. We don’t run the world anymore. increasingly, I mean, it was already happening, but Donald Trump has accelerated it in his second term enormously. That said, we are going to be the richest, most powerful country in the world for the rest of our lives.
and that country needs diplomacy and it needs diplomats. And right now that is being de-emphasized to great, at great cost. You know, our country is losing on so many fronts. So what I say to people, I do talk to a lot of people who are interested in joining the Foreign Service, and I say please follow through on that because we need you.
And having lost so many people, I feel very strongly about it. And, if someone says, well, I don’t think I could work for Donald Trump. say, well, if you apply now, you won’t work for Donald Trump because it takes that long to get in. Now, if you want to know who the next president is, I can’t help you. have no idea. It won’t be Donald Trump. And I believe and I have no grounds for disbelief. I just believe it. Things will be better. I really do believe we’re at a bottom.
Peter Mina (24:10.332)
I’m so glad you’re saying that.
Peter Mina (24:26.162)
Sure.
Eric (24:38.827)
Can I prove that? Of course not. But I do believe that. And so, you know, I say to people, you know, no, it won’t be like when I joined the, you know, the world was our, we created all the systems, we created the United Nations, we created NATO, we created the IMF, we created the World Bank. I mean, all of this was ours. We created the WTO really. But we’re still kind of important. And we need
good people. So, you know, I hope people won’t shy away from that. It’s been a terrible ride for career public servants because the Trump administration hates them and distrust them. But I really do believe that will pass. And I really feel it’s very important. We’re going to have to replace the people who’ve left and who’ve been pushed out. We can’t recreate everything we had a year and a half ago.
There will be no replacement for USAID. I’m quite sure of it. It certainly can’t be revived. We will not spend as much on international development as we did a year and a half ago. Partly because once you lose it, the politics are just not conducive to recreating it. But we’ve got to get back to playing a constructive and engaged role in the world. And I think we will.
And we’ve got to reinvent a little bit. We’ve lost so much that we can’t get back, but somehow we’ve got to think what we can do better and more effectively than what we were doing. I the last point I would make is no one, I I spent almost four decades in this institution and no one thought it was perfect. No one, not even close, and no one was satisfied.
Peter Mina (26:17.586)
All right.
Peter Mina (26:26.93)
course yeah I think you could say about any government agency for sure.
Eric (26:30.077)
Absolutely. I, you know, when I was president of AFSA for four years, I wrote a column every month in our magazine, the Foreign Service Journal. Most of my columns were about what needs to be fixed, what is not working, what. So no one’s defending the status quo, but this kind of destruction is is horrific. And we’ve just got to figure out how we sort of get our way back to some kind of positive forward looking future.
Peter Mina (26:59.57)
Well, so to that end, leads me to what I think people are struggling with right now, which is sort of this push and pull between, as you mentioned, internationalism, respect for global institutions like NATO and the UN and the IMF, and the list goes on. In contrast to quote unquote America first, depending on how you individually define that.
And then obviously what’s happening right now in Iran, you know, the previous incursion into Venezuela, you know, threats about Cuba. As you think about, you know, what our role in the world is, you know, after all of this, how, how should your average citizen make sense of all of this in the current moment with an eye towards again, 29 and beyond.
Eric (27:51.627)
So I think, you know, the average American grew up with a sense of our country as a values-based society. Not to say that we’ve always acted in that way. And, you know, yes, we’ve done things that are very, I would say lamentable and regrettable, but, you know, our country is based on an idea. The Constitution is based on an idea. And losing that,
which is what’s happening now in our foreign policy. I I confess, I was always somewhat critical of human rights and democracy advocacy, partly because it was at times very hypocritical and it was at times very, I would say, based on double standards. know, countries that we needed, we looked the other way if they were horrible dictatorships.
and countries that we didn’t need, we criticized them and put sanctions on them. But I never really thought we could get away completely from having values. So what we’ve seen in Venezuela, what we’ve seen in Iran, what we’re looking at seeing in Cuba is a policy based on the absolute absence of values. mean, Trump has basically said if the Cuban communist regime is willing to make a settlement with us, we’re fine with them staying in power.
And I hope that all the Cuban Americans in Miami and elsewhere who voted for him are okay with that. I know they’re not, but they voted for him. And what we’re seeing in Iran, I mean, I think we’re gonna see a deal with the Iranian regime staying in power and probably being more secure in power than they were six months ago when the whole country was up in arms demonstrating. And Venezuela, I mean, it’s very explicit. It’s the same regime. They just agreed to kowtow to us and…
Peter Mina (29:26.898)
Right. Yep.
Eric (29:49.621)
do what we say so they don’t get killed. But there’s no democracy in Venezuela and doesn’t look like there’s gonna be any. know, again, countries have interests. I have been critical of sometimes our emphasis on some of this, which I thought, but you know, at the end of the day, and then Ukraine is the most important example. know, Ukraine is about key principles and values.
Peter Mina (30:17.638)
Absolutely.
Eric (30:17.707)
national sovereignty, democracy, that the bullies don’t win. And I will say I’m optimistic Ukraine will survive and overcome this, but this administration is not making it easy. So.
Peter Mina (30:36.867)
No, and unfortunately, I think the priorities have become in contrast to values, it’s self-interest and self-aggrandizement.
Eric (30:45.703)
And if you said to me, well, countries have interests in all that, well, of course they do. And, you know, I’m not going to argue that they shouldn’t. But what we’re seeing now, which is different, is personal interests. We haven’t really had that before. We’ve never had a president who was focused on personal aggrandizement and his family’s financial interests and all that. We really haven’t. And it’s shameful. But here we are.
Peter Mina (30:52.754)
Of course.
Peter Mina (31:15.867)
Well, so speaking of self interest, you know, one of the things that, you know, as we come to a close, you know, and I’m so grateful for how gracious you’ve been with your time today. What would you tell our listeners? know, what should they be doing right now? You know, what is the call to action? You know, it’s easy to get kind of overwhelmed by the
just the sheer enormity of everything that’s happening and sort of feeling, you know, almost helpless, like, you know, what do I do? You know, what would you tell that person?
Eric (31:52.011)
Well, I think, based on my experience, there’s so many things that we as Americans need to be focused on. We tend to focus on our own neighborhood and our own personal interests. Our engagement with the world is the basis of our prosperity and security. And I would say it’s so important for people to not only recognize that, but to do something about it. And of course, a lot of Americans
They’ve hosted exchange students. They’ve supported organizations, you know, working overseas on food security and on public health, all sorts of things. But it’s really crazy in 2026 to find ourselves back in the 1920s with the notion that fortress America can survive on its own and we don’t need the rest of the world. And actually the rest of the world is our enemy and
And we’re seeing the results of that economically and in terms of security. mean, anyone who thinks that losing NATO is good for our security is extremely deluded. our allies are saying to us, not just our European allies in NATO, but our allies in Asia and elsewhere are saying to us, you need us and we need you. And that’s the whole point.
It’s a mutual and the idea that we can go it alone. I just read this insane article today about our F-35 fighters, which increasingly are coming off the assembly line without the high tech radars that they need to deal with threats. And that’s because there’s some precious metals and rare earths that they need to
make these radars and 99 % of them come from China. So how is that good? It’s not.
Peter Mina (33:55.89)
No, no, and I think actually, I’m sorry, Eric, go ahead. I was just gonna say, think that.
Eric (33:59.658)
No, it’s fine.
Peter Mina (34:05.628)
what we’re seeing is this hyper individualism as a nation and then honestly as individuals. despite the fact, and tell me if you agree, despite the fact that national security is used as a justification for almost everything, I would argue that we’re profoundly less safe today than we were on January 19th, 2025.
Eric (34:31.935)
I think that’s absolutely true. And I also think that despite the theoretical benefits of the internet, know, back, I’m old enough and you are too to remember when all the arguments were made that the internet is going to increase global knowledge and understanding and everybody will have access to all the information in the world. People are much less informed and much less.
involved in they were before the internet. And that’s a subject for scholarly study that I’m not going to try to get into. But the key point is people, you know, for one thing, Americans don’t understand this collectively, that our citizens are worse off than citizens of most of the other industrialized democracies. You know, if you want to compare us to Burkina Faso, it’s certainly better to be an American. I got that no one’s going to argue that.
Peter Mina (35:06.868)
Sure.
Eric (35:30.507)
But compared to all of our allies and all the other democracies in the world, and there’s about 50 of them, Americans have it worse in so many respects from healthcare to childcare to workplace rights. I mean, you could go down the list. Life is harder here. And that’s something that…
I say, and this is why international engagement is so important. But, you know, we saw this with the insanity about taking over Greenland where, the average Greenlander said, you know what, it’s so much better here than in the United States. Why would we change that? And of course, you know, I’m afraid certainly on the MAGA side that people don’t understand that. And they’re sold a bill of goods that isn’t true. So
Peter Mina (36:07.017)
Right.
Peter Mina (36:27.548)
I think that’s right. I think that’s right. And I think actually it is a great reminder to all of our listeners and to everyone out there that it doesn’t have to be that way. You don’t have to be helpless. There’s always agency.
Eric (36:44.167)
And there’s always, you know, it’s a simplification, but the amount of money we have spent on attacking Iran in the past few months would pay for health insurance for every American for the next few years. It’s that much. But no one, I mean, people are making that case. That’s the kind of thing you hear from Bernie Sanders and
know, some other people. But the point is, it’s actually true. And yet the message is, we can’t afford health care for everybody. We can’t afford long term care for everybody. We can’t afford, you know, good schools for everybody. So, you know, that is part of this. And international engagement leads to understanding some of these things. And I personally think it’s one of the reasons there are people who are opposed to international engagement, because they don’t want to hear it.
And, you know, I think there’s still this American exceptionalism argument that we’re the best thing since sliced bread. And of course, you know, I’m extremely patriotic and deeply grateful for what this country has meant to my family for more than a century. And I believe in this country, but I also recognize it’s not what we claim to be. And I think.
That’s a turning point that we’re approaching that we’re really going have to confront.
Peter Mina (38:16.22)
Absolutely. that knowledge and that honesty is power and helps us fight against that authoritarian slide. so Eric, again, thank you for being so, so gracious with your time. Really appreciate you joining us. And so if you wouldn’t mind, can you tell the audience a little bit about, you’ve mentioned the democracy resilience program or democratic resilience program. I know you mentioned lots of other part-time jobs that you’ve got.
I know if there’s anything you want to highlight or just let folks know where they can find you, you know, in the great interwebs.
Eric (38:50.965)
Certainly. So I’m on the board as well of the American Academy of Diplomacy and working with the academy on working with Congress, with congressional staffers and members on issues related to supporting the foreign service. And that’s a strong commitment and I’m hopeful we’ll have a new Congress that will be more receptive to positive things.
I’m also on the board of DACOR, which is originally the Diplomatic and Counselor Officers Retired Group, but it’s now really essentially the organization of foreign affairs professionals throughout our country and a very important space for discussion and other things. I’m doing a couple of things working with high school students who are interested in foreign affairs.
I’m also on the board of YIVO, the Jewish Institute, the YIVO Institute for Jewish Research in New York, which is partly based on my family heritage and my commitment to that. And then I’m also working on several projects looking ahead to what 2029 looks like and how we can think about reinvention and how we can think about what comes next if we have the opportunity.
So that’s something I’m very happy to be part of. And then I do a lot of speaking engagements around the country and I do a lot of interviews. And basically the message I try to convey is the importance of America’s engagement with the world and the importance of career diplomats and career expertise.
Peter Mina (40:41.638)
Absolutely. And I know you’re also pretty active on LinkedIn and other places. So, you know, people can definitely, you know, find you there. And so, to our audience, if you like what you heard on today’s show, please subscribe to the steady state Sentinel wherever you get your podcasts and give us a five star review on Google. Those subscriptions and five star reviews help us get this important content to the widest audience possible.
Eric (40:45.674)
Yes.
Peter Mina (41:05.82)
If you’d like to hear more from our guests about the implications of the administration’s foreign policy and the dismantling of the career foreign service, also check out my interview with our chairman of the board of the steady state, Tom O’Brien. And as always, the steady state Sentinel is for you, our listeners, and we want to hear from you. Please join us for our next episode so you can stay engaged and stay informed. Remember, protecting our democracy is not a spectator sport.
This is Peter Mina for the Steady State Sentinel, still standing watch.
The Steady State Sentinel is produced by The Steady State, a community of former national security professionals who spent their careers safeguarding the United States at home and abroad. Today, we continue that mission by staying true to our oaths to defend the Constitution, uphold democracy, and protect national security. Each episode features expert hosts in conversation with accomplished guests whose experience sheds light on the crises and challenges facing the nation.