In this episode we hear from retired Navy Admiral Steve Abbot who served as the deputy homeland security advisor to the President of the United States. You'll also hear from retired Marine Corps Colonel David Lapan who served as the press secretary and deputy assistant secretary for media relations during the last administration. They both join Ellen Gustafson and Jeremy Butler (USN) to dispel myths and highlight the accomplishments of the DHS over the last two decades.
For more, check us out at www.wetheveterans.us and at https://linktr.ee/vettedconversations
Listen
Watch
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
SPEAKER_03 (00:00):
Americans eventually do the right thing.
I think uh Winston Churchillsaid that uh, you know, after
they've tried everything else.
And and uh Dave was uh spot onwhen he talked about the fact
that, you know, we've it's amessy thing.
Um I'd like to point out thatyou know the uh plan that they
(00:20):
hatched in 1776 and 1789 was wasnot an immaculate conception.
It had some flaws, and thosehave need needed to be worked
out over the history of thecountry.
They they were some major flaws,as we all know.
SPEAKER_01 (00:42):
Hello, and welcome to Vet Our Democracy Podcast,
created by us, the nonprofit,nonpartisan pro-democracy group,
We the Veterans and MilitaryFamilies.
In this series, we explore whatit means to be a citizen, what
veterans and military familiescan do in supporting and
defending our constitutionfollowing military service, and
how you can get more involved tohelp create a more perfect
(01:02):
union.
We're all in this democracything together, and it's
important to know our rights andresponsibilities.
As citizens, we need to know howour government is supposed to
work so we can engagepatriotically and positively to
bring about the best version ofAmerica.
If you care about America,democracy, baseball, mom, and
apple pie, then this is apodcast for you.
Joining us today are two specialguests, retired Navy Admiral
(01:24):
Steve Abbott, who served as theDeputy Homeland Security Advisor
to the President from 2001 to2003, and retired Marine Corps
Colonel Dave LePan, who servedas a press secretary and deputy
assistant secretary for mediaoperations for the Secretary of
Homeland Security in 2017.
Ellen, take it away.
SPEAKER_02 (01:41):
Welcome, David LePan and Admiral Steve Abbott.
We are so thrilled to have thisconversation.
I'm especially thrilled to havethis conversation with you.
Um I am a former New Yorker, anexpat New Yorker who was living
in New York City on 9-11.
And then I was a youngresearcher at the Council on
Foreign Relations in 2002, 2003,studying terrorism and sort of
(02:04):
uh working with militaryfellows.
And I can remember very deeplythe Department of Homeland
Security being created byPresident George W.
Bush and understanding verydeeply why it was important.
Um I it was established by lawon November 25th, 2002, um, and
it combined, of course, 22different federal departments
(02:24):
and agencies into a unified,integrated cabinet agency.
Um it was obviously a responseto the 9-11 attacks, but it has
now become the third largestcabinet department, is my
understanding, um, after theDepartment of Defense and
Veteran Affairs.
So again, um our governmentdoing all it can to protect its
citizens.
It's an honor to have thisconversation with you both, who
(02:47):
played an essential role in ourcountry's history with creating
this department and sort ofunderstanding, you know, working
at the very forefront ofhomeland security.
Um would love, before I ask youour civics question, if you can
both introduce yourselves andyour connection to this
conversation, starting withAdmiral Abbott.
SPEAKER_03 (03:07):
Well, Ellen, thank you very much, and thank you uh
for putting this together.
And I'm grateful to be aparticipant.
Um and uh I'm uh a littleconcerned about getting the
civics question, so I I'll startoff with a little uh history on
why I happen to be here.
(03:28):
It's really a uh total uh chanceuh occurrence.
Uh I don't know whether youremember the actor Peter
Sellers, uh, the comedian, hemade a movie called Being There.
He was actually the gardener atthe White House, and he happened
(03:51):
to be uh around when there was adiscussion, and someone said to
him, What do you think?
And he said, There'll be growthin the spring.
So they brought him into theWhite House and he became a
senior official.
That's essentially what happenedto me.
I was uh doing a study at theWhite House in the summer of
(04:15):
2001 on WMD terrorism, and Ihappened to be there on 9-11.
And when Governor Ridge wasbrought when he volunteered to
leave his governorship and cometo the White House, they asked
me to help Governor Ridge getstarted.
(04:35):
And I did that, and after acouple of weeks, he asked me to
stay on as his deputy, and asthey say, the rest was history.
So I spent two years at theWhite House at the Homeland
Security Council and wasinvolved in the development of
the legislation that waseventually passed, as you
mentioned, in November of 2002.
(04:57):
So I'll pause with that uh partof the history lesson and pass
it over to Dave.
SPEAKER_00 (05:03):
Well, thanks, Admiral.
Uh that that's quite the originstory.
My my experience at HomelandSecurity came a bit later.
I'm a retired Marine, uh,started my career in aviation,
and then spent the last 20 yearsin public affairs.
So I served as a spokesman forthe Pentagon, for the chairman
of the Joint Chiefs, had a lotof great assignments, both here
(05:24):
in the United States and indeployed areas.
Um and then General John Kelly,who I had served in the Marines
with and had known for manyyears when he became the
Secretary of Homeland Security,asked me to come and work for
him uh as his press secretary.
So I spent the first uh ninemonths of 2017 um working as the
(05:46):
press secretary for theDepartment of Homeland Security,
both under him and then underthe acting um secretary who had
been the deputy, Elaine Duke.
And so that's what brings meboth to the conversation.
Uh Joe Plensler and I have knowneach other as Marines a long
time, uh, and my relationshipwith General John Kelly and my
time at Homeland Security.
(06:07):
So again, I'm happy to be partof the conversation.
SPEAKER_02 (06:13):
That's great.
It's it's so exciting to have umsomeone who was there at the
outset and then someone who wasthere kind of, you know, during
uh it's it's the heart of itsincredibly important work um in
more recent years.
So okay, here's the civicsquestion that you've all been
waiting for.
Um this is on the citizenshiptest.
People have to answer uh 10questions.
There are a hundred possiblequestions, and they have to get
(06:35):
uh at least six of them right inorder to pass.
Um so here's the question number31.
If both the president and vicepresident can no longer serve,
who becomes the president?
SPEAKER_03 (06:46):
So do I get to go?
SPEAKER_02 (06:48):
Uh yeah, you get to go.
SPEAKER_03 (06:50):
Because that's a pretty current topic at the
moment.
It's the speaker of the house,and uh we currently don't have
one.
Uh so that's a particularlytimely question for the civics
exam.
SPEAKER_02 (07:06):
Well, I love that you said that because you just
gave me an out.
I actually answered thepresident pro tem of the Senate,
which it was wrong, um, becausethat's the next in line after
the speaker, but I could havejust said, well, there's no
speaker right now, so that's theactually correct answer.
Um, so now I'm gonna ask a superhard follow-up um because I was
super curious about this.
Which number in line for thepresidency is the Secretary of
(07:31):
Homeland Security?
SPEAKER_00 (07:36):
I would say the last because it was the most recently
created cabinet position.
SPEAKER_02 (07:44):
Okay, you're 100% right.
It's the last, but do you knowwhat number that is?
SPEAKER_00 (07:49):
I do not.
That's hard.
SPEAKER_02 (07:53):
I know it's really hard.
Okay.
It's it's it's it's the 18th.
It's the 18th.
It's the 18th in line.
So I just wanted you guys bothto be really um up on that.
Um, okay, so so along with beingthe most recent cabinet um level
agency, it's honestly one of theleast uh understood.
Um and there's been so manyconversations about this agency
in recent years and whatincredibly important work it
(08:14):
does.
So I just would love um to hearfrom both of you, First Admiral
Abbott, you know, how how wouldyou describe how DHS fits into
our whole national securitysystem?
SPEAKER_03 (08:28):
Well, I would say that um, you know, 9-11 was the
catalyst for the creation of theDepartment of Homeland Security,
but it was a uh reorganizationthat actually needed to be done
and had needed to be done formany years.
Um it had actually been studiedby several commissions.
(08:53):
Uh, the issue of how would webetter organize ourselves, you
know, most countries haveinterior departments and other
uh organizations of a similarname that perform the functions
of our Department of HomelandSecurity.
But we, as you pointed out, hadyou know those uh duties spread
(09:14):
out among 22 different agencies,and and one of the things that
was described to me early on waswe have somebody drive up to our
uh border, and uh they have notone official who comes over to
talk to the person after herolls the window down.
(09:35):
We have five different folksthat come over, you know, for
customs and agriculture and uhsecurity and so forth.
Uh it was recognized that thecountry truly did need to have a
reorganization because um it wasvery inefficient the way we were
(09:58):
running it, and 9-11 showed thatwe had really serious
vulnerabilities.
Americans generally think aboutdefense as something that we do
overseas, and 9-11 brought ithome to us that uh we we have to
ensure that we're defendingAmericans here at home.
(10:22):
Uh, and that's the duty of theDepartment of Homeland Security.
And so that's its uh role in ournational defense.
And I think you if you can breakit down and talk about its
individual parts and how each ofthem uh fit into that, whether
it's the Coast Guard or theTransportation Security
(10:44):
Administration or U.S.
Customs, but they all form partof the defense of the country,
and they also perform servicesfor our citizens that are
essential.
So uh that's why we needed it,that's why we have it, and uh
that's why it's a whole lotbetter than what uh existed
(11:07):
before.
SPEAKER_02 (11:09):
Thank you.
Yeah, I mean I I like I said Idistinctly remember that as a
student of you knowinternational relations and
national security, and and againliving in New York during 9-11,
um, that we learned that we hadthis vulnerability.
Um but then I would argue as acitizen uh closely watching
these these things, um, that bythe time, Dave, that you kind of
(11:31):
entered the DHS world, 14 years,I guess, into its existence, um,
DHS had essentially been asuccessful agency in terms of
protecting us at home.
And and then the Department ofDefense had been successful in,
I would argue, taking the fightback to the enemy and uh keeping
(11:52):
sort of the American populace asfar away from it as possible.
How would you say, um, you know,from your experience during that
time, how did you see DHSfitting into the general
national security apparatus andkeeping people safe?
SPEAKER_00 (12:07):
Um well, exactly to your point, um, one thing that I
used to say frequently when Iwas at the department was DHS is
the only agency solely focusedon the security of the homeland.
Obviously, DOD has a part uhthat play in that, but again, it
has many other roles, especiallyaway from our borders.
Um, again, in the in themilitary, we used to say, you
(12:29):
know, we always want to fightthe away game, right?
We want to extend our power outaway from our shores so that we
don't have to fight um enemieshere in the United States.
Uh however, DHS is mostlyfocused on that internal piece.
But one of the things I thinkpeople may not understand is the
(12:51):
role that DOD, or I'm sorry,that DHS does play overseas,
whether it's the Coast Guard orTSA or other elements, uh,
customs and border protection,for example, um, also have uh
focus outside the borders of theUnited States to protect things
that are coming into thecountry.
(13:12):
So we're not just stagnant herein the homeland and protecting
our borders, uh, but we alsoproject out not quite the way
the Department of Defense does.
But I think between DOD and DHS,you have that layered approach
to defending and protecting thehomeland.
SPEAKER_02 (13:29):
And so you alluded to uh sort of the general
misconceptions of of the agencyand its job.
And it seems like in in recentyears that's become um, you
know, some sort of mythologyaround what DHS does and and and
what it's supposed to do.
Um, can you both just talk alittle bit about what
misconceptions about DHS you'veyou've heard and you've come
(13:50):
across and and and if you haveany words to dispel those?
SPEAKER_03 (13:55):
Well, I could say um, Ellen, uh you know, I think
the reorganization of those 22agencies and their uh
commencement of operationstogether is one of the great
success stories for uh thiscountry and its uh you know
(14:18):
administrative machinery in theexecutive branch.
It it was a monumentalundertaking from the you know
number of individuals that uhwere involved.
And of course, some of uh theTransportation Security
Administration uh was less thantwo years old.
Uh it it had been formed justimmediately after 9-11, but uh
(14:39):
they had to hire a huge numberof individuals to put that uh
particular element uh intooperation, and people have
different views about theTransportation Security
Administration, but my own isthat it's been an enormous
success for the country.
And and it parallels what elsewas going on in the Department
(15:01):
of Homeland Security, bringingall those very, very different
organizations uh under oneheadquarters.
A good example is the CoastGuard, which of course had
migrated around in governmentquite a bit.
I remember the story of LyndonJohnson calling the Secretary of
(15:22):
the Treasury uh when he wastrying to form the Department of
Transportation to let theTreasury Secretary know that uh
they were going to move thatCoast Guard over to
transportation if the Secretaryof the Treasury didn't have too
much of an objection.
Well, here it migrated again uhfrom transportation into
(15:46):
homeland security.
Uh, and it for a differentreason, by the way.
The reason that Lyndon Johnsonwanted it migrated into
transportation is that he neededthe Department of Transportation
to have some more heft than itwas uh originally uh envisioned
to have.
Whereas the Coast Guard's alogical element of our homeland
(16:09):
security posture, and it hasworked, in my humble opinion,
extremely well and smoothly inthe new department.
And you could go through thatlist of the 22 agencies, and I
think there's a similar argumentthat they've done a remarkable
job of uh of folding in andadapting to the new department.
(16:32):
And um, you know, nothing'sperfect, and Dave has more
current, you know, uh experiencethan I do in this regard, but uh
from the outside, I see theDepartment of Homeland Security
doing a marvelous job.
SPEAKER_02 (16:47):
Thanks.
Yeah, Dave, any other insightson sort of misconceptions and
and and you know, words todispel them?
SPEAKER_00 (16:53):
Sure, a couple of things.
One, um as we've talked about,22 disparate agencies that were
all brought together under oneroof to become the Department of
Home of Homeland Security.
I think most Americans don'tunderstand what that is, right?
I I think they have in theirmind that there's this
Department of Homeland Security,but they couldn't tell you what
the parts and pieces are.
(17:14):
Unlike the Department ofDefense, where most Americans
can tell you it's the Army, it'sthe Navy, it's the Marines, it's
the Air Force, and now it's theSpace Force.
Um Americans, again, wouldn'tunderstand where all the parts
and pieces are.
They probably couldn't tell youthat the Secret Service is part
of the Department of HomelandSecurity, uh, or that the Cyber
(17:38):
and Infrastructure SecurityAgency is part of Homeland
Security.
Um unfortunately, for my timeback at the beginning of the
Trump administration,unfortunately, a lot of the
focus became on immigration.
And I argued at the time that uhit created this misperception
that instead of the Departmentof Homeland Security, we were
the Department of BorderEnforcement, which is just one
(18:01):
of the many uh missions that thedepartment has.
Um and I think that contributesto uh misconceptions and
misunderstandings about all thedifferent parts of the
Department of Homeland Securityand how they operate differently
and with different missions, butall with the same core mission
of protecting the homeland.
(18:22):
Um so one thing is is againimproving the knowledge uh so
people do understand what theparts and pieces of the
Department of Homeland Securityare and how they work together
to protect the homeland.
Um I'll leave it there and keepgoing.
SPEAKER_02 (18:39):
Well, it's so interesting because you know, I
think in recent years, and youyou referred to one of the kind
of touch points, is we've seenpeople and groups and
politicians on the left beingfrustrated at DHS for for some
reasons and angry and you know,and then people on the right
being frustrated and angry atDHS for other reasons.
(19:00):
And I I kind of feel like thatmeans you're doing a great job
when you've got both sides um,you know, mad about uh you know
overstepping or doing your job.
Um I think that that's probablya good sign.
What do you guys think?
SPEAKER_03 (19:13):
I think that that's a valid observation, but I also
believe that the individuals inthe Department of Homeland
Security have executed theirduties on the missions they have
been given in a truly fine andprofessional manner in general
(19:33):
terms.
There are certainly incidentsthat people can point to, but
individuals who work in theexecutive branch are working to
policies that have been set bythe political element of our
government.
And if there are problems withuh what those policies are as
(19:57):
they translate into the workthat's being done.
For instance, at the border,that's not to be laid on the
head of those people in uniformin customs and border
protection, in my humble view,it's laid at the feet of the
politicians who are setting thepolicy.
SPEAKER_02 (20:18):
Yeah, absolutely.
And you know, that's somethingwe often forget also with our
military.
We have had the same issue overthe years with people blaming
military members for executingpolicy.
So speaking of military membersand policy and all the things,
we are living in extremelyvolatile times, especially in
this exact current moment with anew conflict developed and on
(20:43):
the horizon.
So that's abroad, but alsothere's incredible volatility at
home.
Would love to hear both of yourthoughts as you know leaders
over the years in this exactfield about what the greatest
threats are to uh the homeland,but also to the institutions and
our democracy.
(21:03):
I kind of want to see, you know,there's there's two all there's
two answers, right?
There's what are the threats tothe homeland, and then also what
are the threats to our democracyand institutions.
SPEAKER_03 (21:13):
Dave, I'm gonna defer to you to go first.
SPEAKER_00 (21:17):
Okay, thank you.
Um, it's a great questionbecause I would start with the
threats to our democracy.
To me, the threats to ourdemocracy can undermine our
ability to respond to thoseother threats, right?
And so that's the part that wereally have to get right.
Because if we allow ourdemocracy uh to crumble, if we
(21:40):
allow our democracy, um I don'tknow that we're in the danger of
it failing, but we're certainlyin the in the place where our
democracy and our institutionsare highly damaged.
And in that state, our abilityto respond to external threats,
you know, whether it's Russiaand Ukraine, whether it's China,
(22:00):
whether it's North Korea,whether it's cyber, uh, whether
it's terrorism, right?
So there are a lot of threatsout there.
Um, but what underpins it for meis the threat to our democracy.
And if we do not strengthen ourdemocracy, if we do not get back
on track, uh those other threatsloom larger than they might.
Uh, I think in this current umenvironment in which we're
(22:24):
facing, both with the theabsence of a speaker of the
House, uh the absence of theHouse being able to conduct its
business, um, puts the UnitedStates in a very vulnerable
position with our adversaries uhthat might take advantage of
what they perceive as ourweakness.
So to me, we got to get ourdemocracy back uh in line and
(22:44):
strengthened so that we canprotect against the more
physical threats that ourcountry faces.
SPEAKER_02 (22:52):
Thanks.
Yeah, Admiral Abbott.
SPEAKER_03 (22:54):
I think Dave is exactly right that the uh
instability in our legislativebranch in the House uh of uh
recently has been characterizedby others uh as just delighting
Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping.
I think that's right.
(23:14):
That they see it as uh you knowproof that United States
democracy really doesn't runwell.
Well, uh they have a point, andit's up to us, the people, to do
the necessary maintenance on thesystem to help it run better
(23:35):
than it has.
And I'm not just talking aboutthe legislative branch here,
that there are plenty of youknow examples in the legislative
branch that we know too recentones are the you know uh
inability of the House to do thenation's business as it deals
with the replacement of thespeaker.
(23:56):
But I would add, for instance,the hold that's been placed on
the appointment of senior uhmilitary officers to their
positions.
I uh last time I looked, it wasseveral hundred of those
appointments are held up.
That's an impact on our nationalsecurity, and it's a flaw of our
(24:16):
system, and uh it needs to befixed.
And I could go into uh a youknow a litany of other uh
problems that we have in theelectoral system, uh
gerrymandering, um the electoralreform act uh obviously much
(24:38):
needed, but it's not just the uhlegislative branch, it's also
the judiciary and it's also theexecutive branch.
And my opinion is that uh thereneeds to be a look at what could
(25:00):
be done to fix these problemsand uh where they are entrenched
in a system like our Congress,where they simply can't fix
themselves because of the factthat it would dilute the power
of individual members, then itneeds to be made uh by some you
(25:24):
know deliberation of others orperhaps bring back a Simpson
Bowls type approach to look atdemocratic uh process and make
recommendations to help uh fixthe democracy, which as Dave and
I mentioned before this started,has gone wobbly.
And we need to work together toright the ship.
(25:47):
And I hope perhaps we can getaround to talking about well,
should people who served inuniform be involved in any of
this?
SPEAKER_02 (25:57):
Well, we will, we will get around to that.
Uh absolutely.
I I though I'm really curiousbecause you you both made me
think that you both talked aboutthe current, right now, 2023,
you know, sort of volatilitywithin our democracy.
And a lot of times people say,you know, oh, well, America's
been at odds before and there'sbeen partisans,
(26:19):
hyperpartisanship before.
But you have both been involvedin DHS and Homeland Security at
times when I don't know if in2017 and in 2002, 2001, 2002,
people would have said thebiggest threat to America is
what's happening internally.
I think people you might havehad a different answer then.
(26:40):
And I'm curious if you cancontextualize that from those
those moments in history.
Would would you have said thatit was like the internal
American democratic institutionthat was the problem?
Or would you have actuallylooked at at outside threats as
the as the bigger problem?
SPEAKER_00 (26:56):
I would have looked at the outside threats.
Uh again, our our our democracyis meant to be, right?
It was built to be messy.
It's never going to be perfect.
Um there's always going to besome level of dissension and
disagreement.
Uh one of the things I didn'ttalk about in my um bio is that
I worked for a time at thebipartisan policy center, right?
(27:19):
The days and and when I wasthere, I would, you know, tell
people I worked there and Iwould get some version of, yeah,
how's that going?
Um because over time we've seenthis atrophy of the strength of
our institutions andbipartisanship.
So again, looking back inhistory, Democrats and
Republicans didn't get along.
(27:41):
They had arguments, they hadprincipled arguments.
Uh, but at the end of the day,they weren't attacking one
another, they weren't attackingthe system, right?
They could have principleddisagreements, but they sought
compromise.
Um, I think where we are todayhas moved so far beyond that
that that leaves us as ademocracy and as a country
vulnerable.
(28:01):
So I do think we need to, youknow, again, it's not as if it's
always been perfect.
Uh there was no time in historyuh where we haven't had
disagreements, um, butpreviously the disagreements
were policy-driven and notpersonal, personal and
personality.
Uh, and they weren't done in away to damage the institutions
(28:24):
in the ways that we're seeingtoday.
And I think that makes us weakerand more vulnerable than we have
been in the past.
SPEAKER_02 (28:30):
Yeah, I mean, not to be a total history nerd, but a
lot of people might not rememberthat there was an insanely
contentious election in 2000that led to involvement by the
courts and eventually apresident who didn't win the
popular vote but became thepresident and was not a
president in a massively unitedcountry.
But amazingly, if I rememberhistory correctly, uh, you know,
(28:53):
in my in my younger days, and IAdmiral Abbott was living this
moment in history as hepreviously said, we did come
together.
There was an unbelievablegroundswell of unification after
9-11.
And I'm just curious, AdmiralAbbott, if you would agree that
that was, you know, challengesto our domestic, you know, by
our domestic politics to ourdemocracy was not the threat to
(29:14):
the homeland and our security uhthen as it is today.
SPEAKER_03 (29:20):
So um Americans eventually do the right thing.
I think uh Winston Churchillsaid that uh, you know, after
they've tried everything else.
And and uh Dave was uh spot onwhen he talked about the fact
that you know we it's a messything.
Um I like to point out that youknow the uh plan that they
(29:43):
hatched in 1776 and 1789 was wasnot an immaculate conception.
It had some flaws, and thosehave need needed to be worked
out over the history of thecountry.
They they were some major flaws,as we all know.
And uh the the way the um youknow uh electoral machinery uh
(30:06):
ran uh was uh not entirely uhyou know the voice of the people
deciding, for instance, who wasgoing to be president if you
look at the election of 1876, uhit's a you know, which resulted
in the you know, the end of theJim Crow era, that it was a
(30:30):
messy uh process that eventuallygot fixed.
And so uh, you know, I could goon with you know the uh women's
emancipation and you know thecivil rights era, uh, so many
examples where the countryworked through its problems.
I think that actually trying tohold up a yardstick to for me to
(30:57):
say, you know, the internalthreat is greater at the moment
than the external threat.
Uh I don't think that's the wayI look at it.
I I say, you know, the threatsebb and flow and sometimes can't
be anticipated.
And we need to be prepared tomeet those threats when they do,
(31:22):
and that's true bothdomestically and uh overseas,
and some of the modernchallenges that presented
enormous issues for us as asociety.
Um I just raised the cyber worldas one example.
(31:42):
Uh, but we we need to do boththings well, and we've needed
the Department of HomelandSecurity to mature just as it
has in order to handle theinternal threat.
SPEAKER_02 (31:58):
So to get to the question you were you were
hoping to go to before, AdmiralAbbott, you know, you are both
um you're both veterans,although I know once a marine,
always a marine, so I'll callyou a veteran and a marine,
Dave.
Um and and you know, you'reobviously both you're obviously
both patriots.
You've served your country inuniform and in other capacities.
(32:20):
Um and so it's it's interestingthat we have often these um
these perceptions that you know,what is the role, the special
role of veterans and theirfamilies to comment on the state
of our democratic system, howthat affects national security,
because it really does affect usand it had it affected our
lives, your lives when you, youknow, in in uniform.
(32:43):
Um what do you think veteransand and military families uh you
know could be doing, should bedoing, can be doing to help
reinforce our democratic systembecause it is so pertinent to uh
our national security.
SPEAKER_03 (32:58):
Ellen, would you like me to jump on this one?
Uh it's one of my favorite.
SPEAKER_02 (33:03):
Yes, I know.
This is your thing.
I know.
Go for it.
SPEAKER_03 (33:05):
Well, I usually start out by saying that uh all
of us who wore a uniform sworean oath, you know, to support
and defend the Constitution.
And uh that was a solemn oath.
We were bound to it.
Um but in the years since I leftuniform, I realized I still have
(33:31):
a commitment to that oath, whichI think goes over for all of us
as citizens to support anddefend the Constitution.
And it's not just those of uswho were former military, uh,
you know, veterans, retirees,people who are in the families
(33:51):
of those of us who were actuallyin uniform.
It it's every citizen in theUnited States ought to be part
of the effort.
We were talking, I think,earlier about how civics
education is, you know, we needto turn the Rheastat up on
civics education.
But for those of us who were inuniform, I I think we understand
(34:12):
that you can continue to serve,and it depends on what your
circumstances are.
Um if you're Dave Le Pan andyou're in a position to be able
to go serve in a senior uhpolicy position in the
Department of Homeland Security,what a wonderful way to
contribute to to your country.
(34:33):
It's not something everyone isis either equipped or positioned
to be able to do, but but we allcan participate in one way or
another.
Joe Plinsler drafted me intobeing a uh a worker at my local
precinct in the electionprocess.
So I'm I'm an election workernow because of Joe Plinsler.
(34:55):
And uh I think all of us shouldbe looking for those ways in
which we can help the countrymove along, and it depends on
where we are and what we haveand what we can do, but we all
ought to participate.
I have one of my best familyfriends became the mayor of
(35:16):
Winter Park, Florida.
And uh we all know we've hadwonderful uh former military
people in senior positions.
Uh John McCain was a familyfriend.
Uh I often remind people thatfive of our presidents were
career military officers.
So it's perfectly reasonable forformer military to continue to
(35:40):
serve their country after theyleave uniform.
SPEAKER_02 (35:43):
Dave, any thoughts about ways that our community,
veterans, military families canreinforce the system, the norms,
as it especially because it's soimportant to national security?
SPEAKER_00 (35:55):
Uh absolutely.
I'd uh make three pointsfollowing on what Emerald Abbott
said first, uh, as he mentioned,right?
When we served in uniform, weraised our right hand.
We swore that oath to theConstitution.
We I think by and large, and Ican't obviously speak for
everyone, but for me, when Itook off the uniform, that
didn't go away, right?
(36:16):
I didn't only have that oath toprotect and defend the
Constitution because I was inuniform.
And then once I retired from themilitary, I no longer had that
obligation.
Uh I certainly didn't have toraise my hand every time and do
it as regularly as I did in themilitary.
But within me, there was stillthat uh oath that whether I'm in
(36:40):
uniform or without or outsideuniform, I'm going to uh take
those same steps.
Uh and I think that that'simportant for veterans to
remember is that when they takeoff the uniform, it doesn't mean
that their dedication to ourconstitution and to our country
ends there.
Um of the things I think,though, that that veterans uh
(37:02):
once they leave the militaryoften feel out of place in
politics or engaging inpolitics.
One, because while they were inuniform, it was restricted.
It's not as if they couldn't.
Um, but I think a lot ofmilitary folks uh and and me
personally, there was a timethat I didn't actively
(37:23):
participate in politics becauseof this idea that you know we
have to remain apolitical or atleast uh nonpartisan, right?
And so once you take off theuniform and you know retire, you
become a veteran by any means,uh, you have more freedom to
engage in the electoral processand whatever that is, whether
(37:45):
it's you know simply voting, um,you know, the basic uh
responsibility of Americans tovote, whether it's getting
involved in campaigns, whetherit's you know, fundraising,
whether, you know, there aremany ways to do that.
Uh, and I think sometimesveterans come out of the
military not really sure notreally sure how uh to make that
(38:06):
transition into a world thatthey didn't really participate
in, at least very actively uhwhile they were in uniform.
Um and as Joe has done, and asEmerald Abbott talked about, you
know, volunteering to serve umon election day or at polling
places, uh, the key there, thekey terms there are volunteering
(38:28):
and serving, which is what we inthe military and and those who
become veterans uh often look todo after we hang up the uniform.
So those are great opportunitiesto get involved.
Um again, I go back to theinitial point that because we
swore this oath to defend theConstitution, once we take off
the uniform, those are veryconcrete ways that we can
(38:51):
continue to support and defendthe Constitution by getting
involved in political activity,in voting, um, and by serving as
voices.
I mean, we've gained a lot ofexperience that most Americans
don't have the opportunity tohave, uh serving overseas,
experience in differentcultures, frankly, serving in
(39:13):
places where democracy doesn'texist and having to have that
perspective.
Um, so there's value to us inbringing that into the political
arena uh once we leave uniform.
SPEAKER_02 (39:25):
Yeah, thank you so much.
You know, one thing we talk alot about at We the Veterans in
Military Families is that wehave lots of discussions in our
um in our political, you know,um uh arena about our rights,
but fewer about ourresponsibilities as citizens.
And of course, people who havejoined the military have taken
(39:45):
responsibility for theircitizenship and signed up to to
defend um you know, taken theoath to defend the Constitution.
And I think it's so interesting,you know, one of our
responsibilities, it seems,that, you know, especially like
I say, living through this.
That when change was needed tofind a way to better protect our
homeland, leaders under GeorgeW.
(40:07):
Bush and, you know, uh GovernorRidge stepped up and said we
need, we have the responsibilityto make a change that will
better protect our homeland.
And again, you know, looking atit now, it's been uh 21 years,
um, 20 years, I guess, since thedepartment was stood up, it
seems like it was incrediblysuccessful.
(40:27):
You know, that change, that thatum, you know, that that new way
of doing uh and organizing ourour homeland security was was
successful.
And I, you know, I would say youtoo um had uh a hand in that.
And we are uh very, verygrateful for the fact that you
continued to serve after youtook off the uniform and serve
in the capacity that you did.
SPEAKER_03 (40:49):
Any final thoughts um about DHS that everyone,
especially military families andveterans, should know I would
only say that um every time Isee a member of the department,
and I think like a lot ofpeople, uh much of that is
traveling through airports thesedays, but it also involves uh
(41:12):
you know getting my passportsstamped.
Um and uh I I would just want toacknowledge the wonderful
service of those individuals,how much we rely on them, and
say that I'm truly grateful forit.
SPEAKER_02 (41:32):
Dave, any final thoughts?
SPEAKER_00 (41:34):
Um final thought.
Going back to your original umquestion about the citizenship
test, right?
Uh it's not lost on me that tobecome an American citizen, you
have to pass this test, right?
You have to understand civics,you have to understand the
system of government.
To be an American, you don'thave to have any of that.
(41:56):
Um So I think the obligation uhfor all Americans, but certainly
for veterans and veteranfamilies to lead the way is on
being educated and remainingeducated about our system of
government and taking an activerole in making it better.
Again, it's it's sloppy, it'snever going to be perfect.
Um, but the worst thing that canhappen to our democracy is
(42:20):
antipathy or um people turningaway.
I know that it's tough to watchthe news every day, it's there's
lots going on.
Uh, it can affect people, youknow, viscerally.
Um, but I worry that in aneffort to kind of you know
protect ourselves from someugliness that's out there in the
world, both outside our bordersand now inside, is that um
(42:44):
people turn away and stop payingattention.
And I worry that someday folksare gonna wake up and say, how
did that happen?
Right.
So the key is remainingeducated, remaining engaged uh,
and not turning away justbecause it's tough, because
that's when we're again like on9-11, we're gonna be surprised
(43:06):
um by what happens.
SPEAKER_02 (43:08):
Well, a round of thank yous.
Um, thank you, Admiral SteveAbbott, thank you, Dave Le Pen,
for your leadership, yourservice uh both in the military
and at the Department ofHomeland Security.
And I think uh a final thank youI I want to make is uh to remind
people that are listening tothis to thank your TSA, uh, your
TSA workers because they arealso serving.
(43:31):
And um, the fact that you knowwe were so incredibly grateful
for them 21 years ago, 23 yearsago, you know, when when we were
um you know in the aftermath ofan attack and and and we needed
that security, and now there aresigns up begging American
citizens to not harass thesefolks is is something that we
should all care about, turningthe tide on, especially uh
(43:53):
veterans and and military familymembers.
So thank you both, and please goout and thank your TSA uh
security folks because they'rethey're doing their best.
SPEAKER_01 (44:01):
Thank you so much for listening.
If you found this podcastepisode interesting or useful,
please share it with the peopleyou know.
This episode was co-hosted byJoe Plunzler, Ellen Giftson, and
Jeremy Buller.
The audio and video were editedby Cameron King.
Vet Our Democracy is aproduction of We the Veterans
and Military Families, a 501c3non-for-profit, nonpartisan,
(44:23):
pro-democracy organization.
We are focused on promotingpositive and patriotic civic
engagement to strengthenAmerican democracy.
Find out more about us at we theveterans.us and follow us on
social media.
Until next time.
Americans eventually do the right thing.
I think uh Winston Churchillsaid that uh, you know, after
they've tried everything else.
And and uh Dave was uh spot onwhen he talked about the fact
that, you know, we've it's amessy thing.
Um I'd like to point out thatyou know the uh plan that they
(00:20):
hatched in 1776 and 1789 was wasnot an immaculate conception.
It had some flaws, and thosehave need needed to be worked
out over the history of thecountry.
They they were some major flaws,as we all know.
SPEAKER_01 (00:42):
Hello, and welcome to Vet Our Democracy Podcast,
created by us, the nonprofit,nonpartisan pro-democracy group,
We the Veterans and MilitaryFamilies.
In this series, we explore whatit means to be a citizen, what
veterans and military familiescan do in supporting and
defending our constitutionfollowing military service, and
how you can get more involved tohelp create a more perfect
(01:02):
union.
We're all in this democracything together, and it's
important to know our rights andresponsibilities.
As citizens, we need to know howour government is supposed to
work so we can engagepatriotically and positively to
bring about the best version ofAmerica.
If you care about America,democracy, baseball, mom, and
apple pie, then this is apodcast for you.
Joining us today are two specialguests, retired Navy Admiral
(01:24):
Steve Abbott, who served as theDeputy Homeland Security Advisor
to the President from 2001 to2003, and retired Marine Corps
Colonel Dave LePan, who servedas a press secretary and deputy
assistant secretary for mediaoperations for the Secretary of
Homeland Security in 2017.
Ellen, take it away.
SPEAKER_02 (01:41):
Welcome, David LePan and Admiral Steve Abbott.
We are so thrilled to have thisconversation.
I'm especially thrilled to havethis conversation with you.
Um I am a former New Yorker, anexpat New Yorker who was living
in New York City on 9-11.
And then I was a youngresearcher at the Council on
Foreign Relations in 2002, 2003,studying terrorism and sort of
(02:04):
uh working with militaryfellows.
And I can remember very deeplythe Department of Homeland
Security being created byPresident George W.
Bush and understanding verydeeply why it was important.
Um I it was established by lawon November 25th, 2002, um, and
it combined, of course, 22different federal departments
(02:24):
and agencies into a unified,integrated cabinet agency.
Um it was obviously a responseto the 9-11 attacks, but it has
now become the third largestcabinet department, is my
understanding, um, after theDepartment of Defense and
Veteran Affairs.
So again, um our governmentdoing all it can to protect its
citizens.
It's an honor to have thisconversation with you both, who
(02:47):
played an essential role in ourcountry's history with creating
this department and sort ofunderstanding, you know, working
at the very forefront ofhomeland security.
Um would love, before I ask youour civics question, if you can
both introduce yourselves andyour connection to this
conversation, starting withAdmiral Abbott.
SPEAKER_03 (03:07):
Well, Ellen, thank you very much, and thank you uh
for putting this together.
And I'm grateful to be aparticipant.
Um and uh I'm uh a littleconcerned about getting the
civics question, so I I'll startoff with a little uh history on
why I happen to be here.
(03:28):
It's really a uh total uh chanceuh occurrence.
Uh I don't know whether youremember the actor Peter
Sellers, uh, the comedian, hemade a movie called Being There.
He was actually the gardener atthe White House, and he happened
(03:51):
to be uh around when there was adiscussion, and someone said to
him, What do you think?
And he said, There'll be growthin the spring.
So they brought him into theWhite House and he became a
senior official.
That's essentially what happenedto me.
I was uh doing a study at theWhite House in the summer of
(04:15):
2001 on WMD terrorism, and Ihappened to be there on 9-11.
And when Governor Ridge wasbrought when he volunteered to
leave his governorship and cometo the White House, they asked
me to help Governor Ridge getstarted.
(04:35):
And I did that, and after acouple of weeks, he asked me to
stay on as his deputy, and asthey say, the rest was history.
So I spent two years at theWhite House at the Homeland
Security Council and wasinvolved in the development of
the legislation that waseventually passed, as you
mentioned, in November of 2002.
(04:57):
So I'll pause with that uh partof the history lesson and pass
it over to Dave.
SPEAKER_00 (05:03):
Well, thanks, Admiral.
Uh that that's quite the originstory.
My my experience at HomelandSecurity came a bit later.
I'm a retired Marine, uh,started my career in aviation,
and then spent the last 20 yearsin public affairs.
So I served as a spokesman forthe Pentagon, for the chairman
of the Joint Chiefs, had a lotof great assignments, both here
(05:24):
in the United States and indeployed areas.
Um and then General John Kelly,who I had served in the Marines
with and had known for manyyears when he became the
Secretary of Homeland Security,asked me to come and work for
him uh as his press secretary.
So I spent the first uh ninemonths of 2017 um working as the
(05:46):
press secretary for theDepartment of Homeland Security,
both under him and then underthe acting um secretary who had
been the deputy, Elaine Duke.
And so that's what brings meboth to the conversation.
Uh Joe Plensler and I have knowneach other as Marines a long
time, uh, and my relationshipwith General John Kelly and my
time at Homeland Security.
(06:07):
So again, I'm happy to be partof the conversation.
SPEAKER_02 (06:13):
That's great.
It's it's so exciting to have umsomeone who was there at the
outset and then someone who wasthere kind of, you know, during
uh it's it's the heart of itsincredibly important work um in
more recent years.
So okay, here's the civicsquestion that you've all been
waiting for.
Um this is on the citizenshiptest.
People have to answer uh 10questions.
There are a hundred possiblequestions, and they have to get
(06:35):
uh at least six of them right inorder to pass.
Um so here's the question number31.
If both the president and vicepresident can no longer serve,
who becomes the president?
SPEAKER_03 (06:46):
So do I get to go?
SPEAKER_02 (06:48):
Uh yeah, you get to go.
SPEAKER_03 (06:50):
Because that's a pretty current topic at the
moment.
It's the speaker of the house,and uh we currently don't have
one.
Uh so that's a particularlytimely question for the civics
exam.
SPEAKER_02 (07:06):
Well, I love that you said that because you just
gave me an out.
I actually answered thepresident pro tem of the Senate,
which it was wrong, um, becausethat's the next in line after
the speaker, but I could havejust said, well, there's no
speaker right now, so that's theactually correct answer.
Um, so now I'm gonna ask a superhard follow-up um because I was
super curious about this.
Which number in line for thepresidency is the Secretary of
(07:31):
Homeland Security?
SPEAKER_00 (07:36):
I would say the last because it was the most recently
created cabinet position.
SPEAKER_02 (07:44):
Okay, you're 100% right.
It's the last, but do you knowwhat number that is?
SPEAKER_00 (07:49):
I do not.
That's hard.
SPEAKER_02 (07:53):
I know it's really hard.
Okay.
It's it's it's it's the 18th.
It's the 18th.
It's the 18th in line.
So I just wanted you guys bothto be really um up on that.
Um, okay, so so along with beingthe most recent cabinet um level
agency, it's honestly one of theleast uh understood.
Um and there's been so manyconversations about this agency
in recent years and whatincredibly important work it
(08:14):
does.
So I just would love um to hearfrom both of you, First Admiral
Abbott, you know, how how wouldyou describe how DHS fits into
our whole national securitysystem?
SPEAKER_03 (08:28):
Well, I would say that um, you know, 9-11 was the
catalyst for the creation of theDepartment of Homeland Security,
but it was a uh reorganizationthat actually needed to be done
and had needed to be done formany years.
Um it had actually been studiedby several commissions.
(08:53):
Uh, the issue of how would webetter organize ourselves, you
know, most countries haveinterior departments and other
uh organizations of a similarname that perform the functions
of our Department of HomelandSecurity.
But we, as you pointed out, hadyou know those uh duties spread
(09:14):
out among 22 different agencies,and and one of the things that
was described to me early on waswe have somebody drive up to our
uh border, and uh they have notone official who comes over to
talk to the person after herolls the window down.
(09:35):
We have five different folksthat come over, you know, for
customs and agriculture and uhsecurity and so forth.
Uh it was recognized that thecountry truly did need to have a
reorganization because um it wasvery inefficient the way we were
(09:58):
running it, and 9-11 showed thatwe had really serious
vulnerabilities.
Americans generally think aboutdefense as something that we do
overseas, and 9-11 brought ithome to us that uh we we have to
ensure that we're defendingAmericans here at home.
(10:22):
Uh, and that's the duty of theDepartment of Homeland Security.
And so that's its uh role in ournational defense.
And I think you if you can breakit down and talk about its
individual parts and how each ofthem uh fit into that, whether
it's the Coast Guard or theTransportation Security
(10:44):
Administration or U.S.
Customs, but they all form partof the defense of the country,
and they also perform servicesfor our citizens that are
essential.
So uh that's why we needed it,that's why we have it, and uh
that's why it's a whole lotbetter than what uh existed
(11:07):
before.
SPEAKER_02 (11:09):
Thank you.
Yeah, I mean I I like I said Idistinctly remember that as a
student of you knowinternational relations and
national security, and and againliving in New York during 9-11,
um, that we learned that we hadthis vulnerability.
Um but then I would argue as acitizen uh closely watching
these these things, um, that bythe time, Dave, that you kind of
(11:31):
entered the DHS world, 14 years,I guess, into its existence, um,
DHS had essentially been asuccessful agency in terms of
protecting us at home.
And and then the Department ofDefense had been successful in,
I would argue, taking the fightback to the enemy and uh keeping
(11:52):
sort of the American populace asfar away from it as possible.
How would you say, um, you know,from your experience during that
time, how did you see DHSfitting into the general
national security apparatus andkeeping people safe?
SPEAKER_00 (12:07):
Um well, exactly to your point, um, one thing that I
used to say frequently when Iwas at the department was DHS is
the only agency solely focusedon the security of the homeland.
Obviously, DOD has a part uhthat play in that, but again, it
has many other roles, especiallyaway from our borders.
Um, again, in the in themilitary, we used to say, you
(12:29):
know, we always want to fightthe away game, right?
We want to extend our power outaway from our shores so that we
don't have to fight um enemieshere in the United States.
Uh however, DHS is mostlyfocused on that internal piece.
But one of the things I thinkpeople may not understand is the
(12:51):
role that DOD, or I'm sorry,that DHS does play overseas,
whether it's the Coast Guard orTSA or other elements, uh,
customs and border protection,for example, um, also have uh
focus outside the borders of theUnited States to protect things
that are coming into thecountry.
(13:12):
So we're not just stagnant herein the homeland and protecting
our borders, uh, but we alsoproject out not quite the way
the Department of Defense does.
But I think between DOD and DHS,you have that layered approach
to defending and protecting thehomeland.
SPEAKER_02 (13:29):
And so you alluded to uh sort of the general
misconceptions of of the agencyand its job.
And it seems like in in recentyears that's become um, you
know, some sort of mythologyaround what DHS does and and and
what it's supposed to do.
Um, can you both just talk alittle bit about what
misconceptions about DHS you'veyou've heard and you've come
(13:50):
across and and and if you haveany words to dispel those?
SPEAKER_03 (13:55):
Well, I could say um, Ellen, uh you know, I think
the reorganization of those 22agencies and their uh
commencement of operationstogether is one of the great
success stories for uh thiscountry and its uh you know
(14:18):
administrative machinery in theexecutive branch.
It it was a monumentalundertaking from the you know
number of individuals that uhwere involved.
And of course, some of uh theTransportation Security
Administration uh was less thantwo years old.
Uh it it had been formed justimmediately after 9-11, but uh
(14:39):
they had to hire a huge numberof individuals to put that uh
particular element uh intooperation, and people have
different views about theTransportation Security
Administration, but my own isthat it's been an enormous
success for the country.
And and it parallels what elsewas going on in the Department
(15:01):
of Homeland Security, bringingall those very, very different
organizations uh under oneheadquarters.
A good example is the CoastGuard, which of course had
migrated around in governmentquite a bit.
I remember the story of LyndonJohnson calling the Secretary of
(15:22):
the Treasury uh when he wastrying to form the Department of
Transportation to let theTreasury Secretary know that uh
they were going to move thatCoast Guard over to
transportation if the Secretaryof the Treasury didn't have too
much of an objection.
Well, here it migrated again uhfrom transportation into
(15:46):
homeland security.
Uh, and it for a differentreason, by the way.
The reason that Lyndon Johnsonwanted it migrated into
transportation is that he neededthe Department of Transportation
to have some more heft than itwas uh originally uh envisioned
to have.
Whereas the Coast Guard's alogical element of our homeland
(16:09):
security posture, and it hasworked, in my humble opinion,
extremely well and smoothly inthe new department.
And you could go through thatlist of the 22 agencies, and I
think there's a similar argumentthat they've done a remarkable
job of uh of folding in andadapting to the new department.
(16:32):
And um, you know, nothing'sperfect, and Dave has more
current, you know, uh experiencethan I do in this regard, but uh
from the outside, I see theDepartment of Homeland Security
doing a marvelous job.
SPEAKER_02 (16:47):
Thanks.
Yeah, Dave, any other insightson sort of misconceptions and
and and you know, words todispel them?
SPEAKER_00 (16:53):
Sure, a couple of things.
One, um as we've talked about,22 disparate agencies that were
all brought together under oneroof to become the Department of
Home of Homeland Security.
I think most Americans don'tunderstand what that is, right?
I I think they have in theirmind that there's this
Department of Homeland Security,but they couldn't tell you what
the parts and pieces are.
(17:14):
Unlike the Department ofDefense, where most Americans
can tell you it's the Army, it'sthe Navy, it's the Marines, it's
the Air Force, and now it's theSpace Force.
Um Americans, again, wouldn'tunderstand where all the parts
and pieces are.
They probably couldn't tell youthat the Secret Service is part
of the Department of HomelandSecurity, uh, or that the Cyber
(17:38):
and Infrastructure SecurityAgency is part of Homeland
Security.
Um unfortunately, for my timeback at the beginning of the
Trump administration,unfortunately, a lot of the
focus became on immigration.
And I argued at the time that uhit created this misperception
that instead of the Departmentof Homeland Security, we were
the Department of BorderEnforcement, which is just one
(18:01):
of the many uh missions that thedepartment has.
Um and I think that contributesto uh misconceptions and
misunderstandings about all thedifferent parts of the
Department of Homeland Securityand how they operate differently
and with different missions, butall with the same core mission
of protecting the homeland.
(18:22):
Um so one thing is is againimproving the knowledge uh so
people do understand what theparts and pieces of the
Department of Homeland Securityare and how they work together
to protect the homeland.
Um I'll leave it there and keepgoing.
SPEAKER_02 (18:39):
Well, it's so interesting because you know, I
think in recent years, and youyou referred to one of the kind
of touch points, is we've seenpeople and groups and
politicians on the left beingfrustrated at DHS for for some
reasons and angry and you know,and then people on the right
being frustrated and angry atDHS for other reasons.
(19:00):
And I I kind of feel like thatmeans you're doing a great job
when you've got both sides um,you know, mad about uh you know
overstepping or doing your job.
Um I think that that's probablya good sign.
What do you guys think?
SPEAKER_03 (19:13):
I think that that's a valid observation, but I also
believe that the individuals inthe Department of Homeland
Security have executed theirduties on the missions they have
been given in a truly fine andprofessional manner in general
(19:33):
terms.
There are certainly incidentsthat people can point to, but
individuals who work in theexecutive branch are working to
policies that have been set bythe political element of our
government.
And if there are problems withuh what those policies are as
(19:57):
they translate into the workthat's being done.
For instance, at the border,that's not to be laid on the
head of those people in uniformin customs and border
protection, in my humble view,it's laid at the feet of the
politicians who are setting thepolicy.
SPEAKER_02 (20:18):
Yeah, absolutely.
And you know, that's somethingwe often forget also with our
military.
We have had the same issue overthe years with people blaming
military members for executingpolicy.
So speaking of military membersand policy and all the things,
we are living in extremelyvolatile times, especially in
this exact current moment with anew conflict developed and on
(20:43):
the horizon.
So that's abroad, but alsothere's incredible volatility at
home.
Would love to hear both of yourthoughts as you know leaders
over the years in this exactfield about what the greatest
threats are to uh the homeland,but also to the institutions and
our democracy.
(21:03):
I kind of want to see, you know,there's there's two all there's
two answers, right?
There's what are the threats tothe homeland, and then also what
are the threats to our democracyand institutions.
SPEAKER_03 (21:13):
Dave, I'm gonna defer to you to go first.
SPEAKER_00 (21:17):
Okay, thank you.
Um, it's a great questionbecause I would start with the
threats to our democracy.
To me, the threats to ourdemocracy can undermine our
ability to respond to thoseother threats, right?
And so that's the part that wereally have to get right.
Because if we allow ourdemocracy uh to crumble, if we
(21:40):
allow our democracy, um I don'tknow that we're in the danger of
it failing, but we're certainlyin the in the place where our
democracy and our institutionsare highly damaged.
And in that state, our abilityto respond to external threats,
you know, whether it's Russiaand Ukraine, whether it's China,
(22:00):
whether it's North Korea,whether it's cyber, uh, whether
it's terrorism, right?
So there are a lot of threatsout there.
Um, but what underpins it for meis the threat to our democracy.
And if we do not strengthen ourdemocracy, if we do not get back
on track, uh those other threatsloom larger than they might.
Uh, I think in this current umenvironment in which we're
(22:24):
facing, both with the theabsence of a speaker of the
House, uh the absence of theHouse being able to conduct its
business, um, puts the UnitedStates in a very vulnerable
position with our adversaries uhthat might take advantage of
what they perceive as ourweakness.
So to me, we got to get ourdemocracy back uh in line and
(22:44):
strengthened so that we canprotect against the more
physical threats that ourcountry faces.
SPEAKER_02 (22:52):
Thanks.
Yeah, Admiral Abbott.
SPEAKER_03 (22:54):
I think Dave is exactly right that the uh
instability in our legislativebranch in the House uh of uh
recently has been characterizedby others uh as just delighting
Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping.
I think that's right.
(23:14):
That they see it as uh you knowproof that United States
democracy really doesn't runwell.
Well, uh they have a point, andit's up to us, the people, to do
the necessary maintenance on thesystem to help it run better
(23:35):
than it has.
And I'm not just talking aboutthe legislative branch here,
that there are plenty of youknow examples in the legislative
branch that we know too recentones are the you know uh
inability of the House to do thenation's business as it deals
with the replacement of thespeaker.
(23:56):
But I would add, for instance,the hold that's been placed on
the appointment of senior uhmilitary officers to their
positions.
I uh last time I looked, it wasseveral hundred of those
appointments are held up.
That's an impact on our nationalsecurity, and it's a flaw of our
(24:16):
system, and uh it needs to befixed.
And I could go into uh a youknow a litany of other uh
problems that we have in theelectoral system, uh
gerrymandering, um the electoralreform act uh obviously much
(24:38):
needed, but it's not just the uhlegislative branch, it's also
the judiciary and it's also theexecutive branch.
And my opinion is that uh thereneeds to be a look at what could
(25:00):
be done to fix these problemsand uh where they are entrenched
in a system like our Congress,where they simply can't fix
themselves because of the factthat it would dilute the power
of individual members, then itneeds to be made uh by some you
(25:24):
know deliberation of others orperhaps bring back a Simpson
Bowls type approach to look atdemocratic uh process and make
recommendations to help uh fixthe democracy, which as Dave and
I mentioned before this started,has gone wobbly.
And we need to work together toright the ship.
(25:47):
And I hope perhaps we can getaround to talking about well,
should people who served inuniform be involved in any of
this?
SPEAKER_02 (25:57):
Well, we will, we will get around to that.
Uh absolutely.
I I though I'm really curiousbecause you you both made me
think that you both talked aboutthe current, right now, 2023,
you know, sort of volatilitywithin our democracy.
And a lot of times people say,you know, oh, well, America's
been at odds before and there'sbeen partisans,
(26:19):
hyperpartisanship before.
But you have both been involvedin DHS and Homeland Security at
times when I don't know if in2017 and in 2002, 2001, 2002,
people would have said thebiggest threat to America is
what's happening internally.
I think people you might havehad a different answer then.
(26:40):
And I'm curious if you cancontextualize that from those
those moments in history.
Would would you have said thatit was like the internal
American democratic institutionthat was the problem?
Or would you have actuallylooked at at outside threats as
the as the bigger problem?
SPEAKER_00 (26:56):
I would have looked at the outside threats.
Uh again, our our our democracyis meant to be, right?
It was built to be messy.
It's never going to be perfect.
Um there's always going to besome level of dissension and
disagreement.
Uh one of the things I didn'ttalk about in my um bio is that
I worked for a time at thebipartisan policy center, right?
(27:19):
The days and and when I wasthere, I would, you know, tell
people I worked there and Iwould get some version of, yeah,
how's that going?
Um because over time we've seenthis atrophy of the strength of
our institutions andbipartisanship.
So again, looking back inhistory, Democrats and
Republicans didn't get along.
(27:41):
They had arguments, they hadprincipled arguments.
Uh, but at the end of the day,they weren't attacking one
another, they weren't attackingthe system, right?
They could have principleddisagreements, but they sought
compromise.
Um, I think where we are todayhas moved so far beyond that
that that leaves us as ademocracy and as a country
vulnerable.
(28:01):
So I do think we need to, youknow, again, it's not as if it's
always been perfect.
Uh there was no time in historyuh where we haven't had
disagreements, um, butpreviously the disagreements
were policy-driven and notpersonal, personal and
personality.
Uh, and they weren't done in away to damage the institutions
(28:24):
in the ways that we're seeingtoday.
And I think that makes us weakerand more vulnerable than we have
been in the past.
SPEAKER_02 (28:30):
Yeah, I mean, not to be a total history nerd, but a
lot of people might not rememberthat there was an insanely
contentious election in 2000that led to involvement by the
courts and eventually apresident who didn't win the
popular vote but became thepresident and was not a
president in a massively unitedcountry.
But amazingly, if I rememberhistory correctly, uh, you know,
(28:53):
in my in my younger days, and IAdmiral Abbott was living this
moment in history as hepreviously said, we did come
together.
There was an unbelievablegroundswell of unification after
9-11.
And I'm just curious, AdmiralAbbott, if you would agree that
that was, you know, challengesto our domestic, you know, by
our domestic politics to ourdemocracy was not the threat to
(29:14):
the homeland and our security uhthen as it is today.
SPEAKER_03 (29:20):
So um Americans eventually do the right thing.
I think uh Winston Churchillsaid that uh, you know, after
they've tried everything else.
And and uh Dave was uh spot onwhen he talked about the fact
that you know we it's a messything.
Um I like to point out that youknow the uh plan that they
(29:43):
hatched in 1776 and 1789 was wasnot an immaculate conception.
It had some flaws, and thosehave need needed to be worked
out over the history of thecountry.
They they were some major flaws,as we all know.
And uh the the way the um youknow uh electoral machinery uh
(30:06):
ran uh was uh not entirely uhyou know the voice of the people
deciding, for instance, who wasgoing to be president if you
look at the election of 1876, uhit's a you know, which resulted
in the you know, the end of theJim Crow era, that it was a
(30:30):
messy uh process that eventuallygot fixed.
And so uh, you know, I could goon with you know the uh women's
emancipation and you know thecivil rights era, uh, so many
examples where the countryworked through its problems.
I think that actually trying tohold up a yardstick to for me to
(30:57):
say, you know, the internalthreat is greater at the moment
than the external threat.
Uh I don't think that's the wayI look at it.
I I say, you know, the threatsebb and flow and sometimes can't
be anticipated.
And we need to be prepared tomeet those threats when they do,
(31:22):
and that's true bothdomestically and uh overseas,
and some of the modernchallenges that presented
enormous issues for us as asociety.
Um I just raised the cyber worldas one example.
(31:42):
Uh, but we we need to do boththings well, and we've needed
the Department of HomelandSecurity to mature just as it
has in order to handle theinternal threat.
SPEAKER_02 (31:58):
So to get to the question you were you were
hoping to go to before, AdmiralAbbott, you know, you are both
um you're both veterans,although I know once a marine,
always a marine, so I'll callyou a veteran and a marine,
Dave.
Um and and you know, you'reobviously both you're obviously
both patriots.
You've served your country inuniform and in other capacities.
(32:20):
Um and so it's it's interestingthat we have often these um
these perceptions that you know,what is the role, the special
role of veterans and theirfamilies to comment on the state
of our democratic system, howthat affects national security,
because it really does affect usand it had it affected our
lives, your lives when you, youknow, in in uniform.
(32:43):
Um what do you think veteransand and military families uh you
know could be doing, should bedoing, can be doing to help
reinforce our democratic systembecause it is so pertinent to uh
our national security.
SPEAKER_03 (32:58):
Ellen, would you like me to jump on this one?
Uh it's one of my favorite.
SPEAKER_02 (33:03):
Yes, I know.
This is your thing.
I know.
Go for it.
SPEAKER_03 (33:05):
Well, I usually start out by saying that uh all
of us who wore a uniform sworean oath, you know, to support
and defend the Constitution.
And uh that was a solemn oath.
We were bound to it.
Um but in the years since I leftuniform, I realized I still have
(33:31):
a commitment to that oath, whichI think goes over for all of us
as citizens to support anddefend the Constitution.
And it's not just those of uswho were former military, uh,
you know, veterans, retirees,people who are in the families
(33:51):
of those of us who were actuallyin uniform.
It it's every citizen in theUnited States ought to be part
of the effort.
We were talking, I think,earlier about how civics
education is, you know, we needto turn the Rheastat up on
civics education.
But for those of us who were inuniform, I I think we understand
(34:12):
that you can continue to serve,and it depends on what your
circumstances are.
Um if you're Dave Le Pan andyou're in a position to be able
to go serve in a senior uhpolicy position in the
Department of Homeland Security,what a wonderful way to
contribute to to your country.
(34:33):
It's not something everyone isis either equipped or positioned
to be able to do, but but we allcan participate in one way or
another.
Joe Plinsler drafted me intobeing a uh a worker at my local
precinct in the electionprocess.
So I'm I'm an election workernow because of Joe Plinsler.
(34:55):
And uh I think all of us shouldbe looking for those ways in
which we can help the countrymove along, and it depends on
where we are and what we haveand what we can do, but we all
ought to participate.
I have one of my best familyfriends became the mayor of
(35:16):
Winter Park, Florida.
And uh we all know we've hadwonderful uh former military
people in senior positions.
Uh John McCain was a familyfriend.
Uh I often remind people thatfive of our presidents were
career military officers.
So it's perfectly reasonable forformer military to continue to
(35:40):
serve their country after theyleave uniform.
SPEAKER_02 (35:43):
Dave, any thoughts about ways that our community,
veterans, military families canreinforce the system, the norms,
as it especially because it's soimportant to national security?
SPEAKER_00 (35:55):
Uh absolutely.
I'd uh make three pointsfollowing on what Emerald Abbott
said first, uh, as he mentioned,right?
When we served in uniform, weraised our right hand.
We swore that oath to theConstitution.
We I think by and large, and Ican't obviously speak for
everyone, but for me, when Itook off the uniform, that
didn't go away, right?
(36:16):
I didn't only have that oath toprotect and defend the
Constitution because I was inuniform.
And then once I retired from themilitary, I no longer had that
obligation.
Uh I certainly didn't have toraise my hand every time and do
it as regularly as I did in themilitary.
But within me, there was stillthat uh oath that whether I'm in
(36:40):
uniform or without or outsideuniform, I'm going to uh take
those same steps.
Uh and I think that that'simportant for veterans to
remember is that when they takeoff the uniform, it doesn't mean
that their dedication to ourconstitution and to our country
ends there.
Um of the things I think,though, that that veterans uh
(37:02):
once they leave the militaryoften feel out of place in
politics or engaging inpolitics.
One, because while they were inuniform, it was restricted.
It's not as if they couldn't.
Um, but I think a lot ofmilitary folks uh and and me
personally, there was a timethat I didn't actively
(37:23):
participate in politics becauseof this idea that you know we
have to remain apolitical or atleast uh nonpartisan, right?
And so once you take off theuniform and you know retire, you
become a veteran by any means,uh, you have more freedom to
engage in the electoral processand whatever that is, whether
(37:45):
it's you know simply voting, um,you know, the basic uh
responsibility of Americans tovote, whether it's getting
involved in campaigns, whetherit's you know, fundraising,
whether, you know, there aremany ways to do that.
Uh, and I think sometimesveterans come out of the
military not really sure notreally sure how uh to make that
(38:06):
transition into a world thatthey didn't really participate
in, at least very actively uhwhile they were in uniform.
Um and as Joe has done, and asEmerald Abbott talked about, you
know, volunteering to serve umon election day or at polling
places, uh, the key there, thekey terms there are volunteering
(38:28):
and serving, which is what we inthe military and and those who
become veterans uh often look todo after we hang up the uniform.
So those are great opportunitiesto get involved.
Um again, I go back to theinitial point that because we
swore this oath to defend theConstitution, once we take off
the uniform, those are veryconcrete ways that we can
(38:51):
continue to support and defendthe Constitution by getting
involved in political activity,in voting, um, and by serving as
voices.
I mean, we've gained a lot ofexperience that most Americans
don't have the opportunity tohave, uh serving overseas,
experience in differentcultures, frankly, serving in
(39:13):
places where democracy doesn'texist and having to have that
perspective.
Um, so there's value to us inbringing that into the political
arena uh once we leave uniform.
SPEAKER_02 (39:25):
Yeah, thank you so much.
You know, one thing we talk alot about at We the Veterans in
Military Families is that wehave lots of discussions in our
um in our political, you know,um uh arena about our rights,
but fewer about ourresponsibilities as citizens.
And of course, people who havejoined the military have taken
(39:45):
responsibility for theircitizenship and signed up to to
defend um you know, taken theoath to defend the Constitution.
And I think it's so interesting,you know, one of our
responsibilities, it seems,that, you know, especially like
I say, living through this.
That when change was needed tofind a way to better protect our
homeland, leaders under GeorgeW.
(40:07):
Bush and, you know, uh GovernorRidge stepped up and said we
need, we have the responsibilityto make a change that will
better protect our homeland.
And again, you know, looking atit now, it's been uh 21 years,
um, 20 years, I guess, since thedepartment was stood up, it
seems like it was incrediblysuccessful.
(40:27):
You know, that change, that thatum, you know, that that new way
of doing uh and organizing ourour homeland security was was
successful.
And I, you know, I would say youtoo um had uh a hand in that.
And we are uh very, verygrateful for the fact that you
continued to serve after youtook off the uniform and serve
in the capacity that you did.
SPEAKER_03 (40:49):
Any final thoughts um about DHS that everyone,
especially military families andveterans, should know I would
only say that um every time Isee a member of the department,
and I think like a lot ofpeople, uh much of that is
traveling through airports thesedays, but it also involves uh
(41:12):
you know getting my passportsstamped.
Um and uh I I would just want toacknowledge the wonderful
service of those individuals,how much we rely on them, and
say that I'm truly grateful forit.
SPEAKER_02 (41:32):
Dave, any final thoughts?
SPEAKER_00 (41:34):
Um final thought.
Going back to your original umquestion about the citizenship
test, right?
Uh it's not lost on me that tobecome an American citizen, you
have to pass this test, right?
You have to understand civics,you have to understand the
system of government.
To be an American, you don'thave to have any of that.
(41:56):
Um So I think the obligation uhfor all Americans, but certainly
for veterans and veteranfamilies to lead the way is on
being educated and remainingeducated about our system of
government and taking an activerole in making it better.
Again, it's it's sloppy, it'snever going to be perfect.
Um, but the worst thing that canhappen to our democracy is
(42:20):
antipathy or um people turningaway.
I know that it's tough to watchthe news every day, it's there's
lots going on.
Uh, it can affect people, youknow, viscerally.
Um, but I worry that in aneffort to kind of you know
protect ourselves from someugliness that's out there in the
world, both outside our bordersand now inside, is that um
(42:44):
people turn away and stop payingattention.
And I worry that someday folksare gonna wake up and say, how
did that happen?
Right.
So the key is remainingeducated, remaining engaged uh,
and not turning away justbecause it's tough, because
that's when we're again like on9-11, we're gonna be surprised
(43:06):
um by what happens.
SPEAKER_02 (43:08):
Well, a round of thank yous.
Um, thank you, Admiral SteveAbbott, thank you, Dave Le Pen,
for your leadership, yourservice uh both in the military
and at the Department ofHomeland Security.
And I think uh a final thank youI I want to make is uh to remind
people that are listening tothis to thank your TSA, uh, your
TSA workers because they arealso serving.
(43:31):
And um, the fact that you knowwe were so incredibly grateful
for them 21 years ago, 23 yearsago, you know, when when we were
um you know in the aftermath ofan attack and and and we needed
that security, and now there aresigns up begging American
citizens to not harass thesefolks is is something that we
should all care about, turningthe tide on, especially uh
(43:53):
veterans and and military familymembers.
So thank you both, and please goout and thank your TSA uh
security folks because they'rethey're doing their best.
SPEAKER_01 (44:01):
Thank you so much for listening.
If you found this podcastepisode interesting or useful,
please share it with the peopleyou know.
This episode was co-hosted byJoe Plunzler, Ellen Giftson, and
Jeremy Buller.
The audio and video were editedby Cameron King.
Vet Our Democracy is aproduction of We the Veterans
and Military Families, a 501c3non-for-profit, nonpartisan,
(44:23):
pro-democracy organization.
We are focused on promotingpositive and patriotic civic
engagement to strengthenAmerican democracy.
Find out more about us at we theveterans.us and follow us on
social media.
Until next time.
Popular Podcasts
Hey Jonas!
Hey Jonas! The official Jonas Brothers podcast. Hosted by Kevin, Joe, and Nick Jonas. It’s the Jonas Brothers you know... musicians, actors, and well, yes, brothers. Now, they’re sharing another side of themselves in the playful, intimate, and irreverent way only they can. Spend time with the Jonas Brothers here and stay a little bit longer for deep conversations like never before.
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com