Donald Trump's Cabinet Appointments: Craftiness Within The Chaos?
Reality Show Politics and the Senate Shark Tank
[ As this Post goes to press, I’ve just learned of Matt Gaetz’ withdrawal of his nomination as Attorney General. I had anticipated having a little more time to write this before publishing it, but the news is leading me to publish this rough draft as-is. More will be added later. DCR. ]
I’m not the only person whose head is spinning over the Trump administration’s recent announcements of Cabinet nominees:
Pete Hegseth, Secretary of Defense
Marco Rubio, Secretary Of State
Tulsi Gabbard, National Security Director
Matt Gaetz, Attorney General
Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. Secretary of Health and Human Services
Whatta crew. eh? I can hear the cries of imprecation reverberating from one end of Independence Avenue to the other. It just isn’t done, picking outside of the tenured Capitol Hill-Pentagon-Foggy Bottom elite.
I’m withholding judgement on these choices. I mean, really, as if my opinion matters anyhow. The only people who have any say on this are U.S. Senators, where Donald Trump’s party, the Republicans, hold a slender majority. Beyond that, literally everyhing I know about these people is what I’ve read in the papers over the years, which is none too much. I’m anticipating adding to that slim fund of knowledge once the Senate confirmation hearings begin. Until then, I’m not buying into any hype, pro or con.
That said, I’m willing to venture an opinion on the general run of the choices, and Donald Trump’s reasoning in picking them. To me, it looks like very crafty politics. I’ve also come around to the view that my early view of Trump was a serious underestimation of the long suits of his intelligence. My view of his deficiencies still holds: he isn’t even a reader, much less a policy wonk intellectual. He’s vain and vulnerable to flattery, which is most often a sign of insecurity. (But that vanity may have diminished somewhat, now that he’s vanquished his partisan opponents and pulled off a political comeback unprecedented in American history, winning not only the Presidency but a majority in both houses of Congress. Time will tell.) His grasp of American history is more about folkloric myth than attention to the historical record. He has an unfiltered take that’s geared more toward providing an easy rapport with the audience he seeks to attract and persuade than about maintaining fidelity to the facts. Which is to say that yes, he fits the description of a demagogue. Still. The cohort of advisers that he’s gathered around him are a suspect lot, at least from what I’ve been able to gather. Like Trump himself, some of them have a way of talking out of both sides of their mouths, so it’s difficult to say what they’re really up to. Like Trump himself, they have a cynical edge, and some are known for their distinct lack of scruples. They’re willing and able to take the underhanded road, if it seems like the one that will get them their way.
All that said: to the extent that they’re different from previous administrations in those respects, it’s only a matter of degree. Democratic Party partisans have to be dismayed at me pointing that out, but it’s a fact that I can easily support with evidence. The irony is that Donald Trump arguably owes his success to his candid admission of his own self-interested, transactional ambitions; “look at me”, he’ll tell anyone in hearing range, “I know the system is rigged, because I’ve played it for years. What makes me better than my opponents is that I’m not trying to sell you on my high-minded moral superiority.” This presents a serious problem for both the Democrats and the Old Establishment Republicans, because what he’s asserting is inarguable. If one checks the record of campaign promises made vs. campaign promises kept, Presidents have been prevaricating to enable themselves to win elections office throughout American history. I’m not saying this to excuse Trump or let him off the hook for anything he’s been proven to do, or that he might attempt to do. But it does present a serious problem for the Democrats, because on that score, Trump is lot lying. I think this problem goes a long way toward explaining the motivation for the Democratic Party narrative that Trump is Hitler, or a Fascist. If he’s just an ordinary corner-cutting Presidential candidate, he’s just another politician who happens to be on the other side. Intolerable for reasons of partisan politics, but with an ethical baseline little different from his Republican predecessors—or his Democrat predecessors.
Trump has shown that he isn’t above trying, shall we say, “friendly persuasion”, in order to find the extra votes required to assure his re-election in 2020. But while his recall of American history is more self-selected than diligent, if he were ever to come right out and admit to the possibility that he was trying to lean of Republican loyalties to rig his own re-election, he’d probably justify it by saying that the Democrats rigged John F. Kennedy’s 1960 election even more blatantly, and with none of the plausible deniability that his own nudges and legal moves constituted. He’d claim that what he was doing was no worse than the Democrats insistence on only recounting a handful of counties in Florida to settle the 2000 election, when a statewide recount would have been a more fair proposal—but one with less assurance of leading to a victory by Al Gore. Whether or not one agrees that either of those moves excused Trump’s attempts at overturning the election process is less important than the existence of precedents that turn his refusal to concede from being an indisputable case of seditious misconduct into a disputable matter of opinion.
That’s a sharpie lawyer tactic. But sharpie legal tactics win cases, or at least throw them into enough doubt that consensus resolution becomes very difficult indeed. That’s been one of the tools in Trump’s tactics kit all along. Which brings up Trump’s strengths, as I see them: for one thing, he would have made a hell of a trial lawyer. It’s well known that he spent a lot of time around Roy Cohn, whose legal resume includes his early work as an aide to Joseph McCarthy in the Army-McCarthy hearings on the 1950s, and who later achieved even more prominence as chief legal counsel for the Syndicate, the most powerful coalition of criminal organizations in the U.S. in the 1960s and 1970s. (Cohn was also a semi-closeted gay man with markedly libertine proclivities, of which Trump had to have been aware in the hedonistic 1970s. Not that Trump has ever shown interest in swinging that way—and Cohn knew how to keep pleasure separate from business separate from friendship. But their long-standing camaraderie is proof that Donald Trump is not some homophobic yokel; he’s seen enough of the world to understand the wisdom of taking people as they are.) Roy Cohn was a legal shark. Donald Trump knew him for years, and had to have picked up some pointers along the way. But it seems to me that Trump was already adding to a fund of knowledge that he already possessed, about the practical advantages of shrewdness. “The practical advantages of shrewdness” is an oxymoron, really. The shrewd temperament is always angling for real-world advantages. It learns how to read the room. It knows how people are, or anyway how most of them tend to be. It’s a form of applied social intelligence that picks up on opportunities and leverages them. That’s Donald Trump’s secret to success. It’s often been said that Trump’s personal relationships are transactional, overwhelmingly if not entirely. But it has to be said that success at transactional relationships requires a lot of listening, not just talking. Personal charm requires being with the other people in the room, and that’s something that Donald Trump is quite good at. He’s at ease in front of cameras and behind a microphone, too. That self-possession also qualifies as a form of intelligence. Trump got a lot of real-world experience at that when starring in The Apprentice. The reality show that served him so well as a dress rehearsal for being a candidate for political office.
Which brings us to Trump’s first moves, as President-re-elect: choosing his Cabinet, and the method I perceive in the method concealed within the madness of some of his choices. I think media-savvy Donald Trump is working an unprecedented angle with his most outlandish choices: Senate confirmation hearings, as Shark Tank. An approach that has the potential to confer several benefits, direct or indirect.
To begin with, I’m skeptical that Trump expects his most controversial choices to actually be confirmed. And reflecting on the situation, he may not necessarily have that much interest in keeping some of his picks around, it they do get confirmed. Unlike the case with hiring a Cabinet appointment, Trump doesn’t need Senate approval in order to fire one. So the first priority for Trump is to test the confirmation process itself. Including testing his own Senators. This testing may not be the ironclad loyalty test that so many observers think it is. Trump may not actually be all that invested in having some of his choices confirmed. The important thing is the process: the confirmation hearings as theater, with DJT as impresario. The Reality Show. The Senate Shark Tank.
Mike Cernovich has already explicitly stated that Trump’s picks are “not a head fake.” Well, okay. But just on the off-chance that Cernovich’s denial might be less than candid and sincere, let’s consider the candidates, their positions, and the possible deal-breakers that might help or hinder their confirmation in the Senate hearings.
Marco Rubio, Secretary of State: former Senator. NeoConservative. Supporter of every recent overseas intervention by the US military. Pro-Israel. China hawk. No scandals, at least as far as is known. Former Trump rival and detractor, but bygones are bygones, as long as Rubio knows who the boss is. And hence, a shoo-in for confirmation. Will probably win most if not all votes from Senate Democrats, in fact.
Pete Hegseth, Department of Defense: a bit of a head-scratcher. For one thing, Hegseth has an obscure public profile, even as a media figure. Former Fox News host, but not a household name. No resume experience or ties within the corridors of power inside the Pentagon, Capitol Hill, or elsewhere inside the Beltway. Recently reported scandal, previously unpublicized and unreported, related to a Me Too-type sex accusation related to some sort of one-weekend assignation with a woman not Hegseth’s wife that led to a court settlement; the sort of he-said/she-said controversy reminiscent of Trump’s own history with outside women. Hence, ratings appeal. Hence, also a way to signal that troubles of this sort are not the sole preserve of Donald Trump, alleged predator-in-chief. Also, Hegseth has some symbolic affinity for right-wing “Christian nationalism”, as exemplified by his Crusader (and arguably New Evropa-aligned) tattoos. Confirmation chances are doubtful: between the lightweight resume his unseemly personal conduct (adulterous, if nothing else), and the fringe-Right signifying, I view his confirmation as unlikely. Which leads us to why Trump (and advisers) picked him in the first place: Hegseth works as a nod to the right wing of Trump’s base. So they Feel Seen.
Tulsi Gabbard, Director of National Intelligence: Lightweight resume, although not as threadbare as Hegspeth.Veteran G-2, U.S. Army Intelligence. Arguably chosen partly on the basis of Democrat-style DEI calculation: female, raised in a Hindu sect. Doesn’t hurt that she’s a good-looking woman. Pro-Israel. Arguably most interesting aspect of the choice is Gabbard’s anti-interventionist stance on Assad’s Syrian regime, and a similarly iconoclastic reticence to excoriate Russia’s Valdimir Putin as the Sole Villain of the Ukro-Russian War. Readers familiar with my Substack page should know that I share Gabbard’s skepticism. It’s a markedly unpopular view that’s opposed by the consensus of the American legacy media across the board, but it has a lot more traction with observers who have been following those matters more closely. For example, very few Americans noticed the implications of Hillary Clinton’s advocating a No-Fly Zone over Syria toward the end of the third debate with Donald Trump in 2016. Very few American supporters of “Slava Ukraini” have the historical knowledge required to comprehend the historical context and back story of the Ukro-Russian War, either. But at least some of that history is bound to emerge when Tulsi Gabbard is called upon to defend her views in front of a Senate committee that’s practically guaranteed to try to make her wrong for her positions on Syria and Russia. I don’t know how good a counterpuncher Gabbard will prove to be, or how many words she’ll be allowed to get in edgewise, but the hearings promise to allow a lot more of an airing for those iconoclastic foreign policy positions than they’ve gotten in American media. I put the chances of Gabbard’s confirmation as very low. It may be that her actual utility to the Trump administration will be in making some cogent points on the resolution of the Ukro-Russian War as a proxy advance person for Trump’s effort to negotiate a conclusion to the Ukro-Russian War. In any case, the debate will draw a lot of eyeballs. Sparks will fly. Expect some insinuations of Treason to be leveled at both Gabbard and Trump- in the news media, if not in formal Senate hearings.
Matthew Gaetz, Attorney General: the most blatant Trumptroll of all of them, of course. To me, the most interesting thing about the Gaetz pick is that just as Hegseth seems to be a nod to the (ethno)nationalist Right, Gaetz is a wink to the libertarian part of the Trump voter base—and also to “liberaltarians” disgruntled with the pro-surveillance and censorship policies of the Democrats. Also a nod to the “lock up Democrat lawfare persecutors” faction of the Trump base.** Also, yet another sex-scandalized pick. Additionally, allegations of illicit drugs use in a recreational social circumstance make this something of a groundbreaking appointment for chief of the Justice Department. As yet, the Trump team shows no signs of hanging him out to dry. I don’t think they’ll have to back off; there are enough scandalized COP members to thwart the Gaetz confirmation. If Gaetz is confirmed, all bets are off; in which case, we’re really in uncharted territory. This is someone who’s called for the dismantling of the surveillance state, the abolition of the FBI, and pardoning Richard Snowden. A sent of stances that incidentally shows how topsy-turvy American partisan politics has become; Gaetz’s positions don’t follow any conventional “left-right” spectrum, yet poll surveys show that the views are shared by a wide swath of Americans, whatever their views on social spending or traditional cultural standards. Entertainment value to political junkies: substantial. Matt Gaetz enjoys the limelight, and I expect that he’ll offer a lot of entertainment value.This will make for one interesting mini-season of Senate Shark Tank. Bonus: if Trump actually wants Gaetz neutralized, he’s resigned his seat in Congress in order to be nominated.
Update, 0045, 23 November 2024:
As for Matt Gaetz, in retrospect, it’s easy to see that was never going to happen. His resignation—and the speedy withdrawal of his nomination—has some side benefits: now there’s no need for the investigation into his outre recreational activities to dig any deeper. Some people think it also opens up an opportunity for Gaetz to run for Senate, but I’m doubtful; I think that opens up the possibility of resuming the investigation into his scandals. Gaetz may still have a future in the Republican Party—just not not immediately. The nomination of Gaetz is also a feint in the social libertarian anti-surveillance direction—and that’s a significantly numerous multi-spectrum constituency in the electorate. Considering Gaetz’ replacement, Jan Bondi, that’s all it is, merely a symbolic nod in that direction. But the mere fact of Gaetz’ nomination will win some sympathy for Trump. Not that I’m impressed with the gambit. I would have preferred Rand Paul for the AG nomination, myself.
Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Secretary of Health and Human Services: I’m cynically inclined to view this as the second most obvious Trumptroll. RFK Jr. has no executive experience in running a large organization, and no credentials as a health professional. He has staked out some bold positions that run contrary to the accepted medical consensus, most notably on vaccines, although I also anticipate some pointed inquiries regarding his views about negative electromagnetic health effects from Wi-fi and 5G. All I can say is that his trial attorney skills had better be up for the grilling. He’s going to need to make himself clear, at that may involve elbowing his way into the conversation in order to do it. RFK Jr.’s views on vaccines are more nuanced than what’s been reported in the news media; he’s been vaccinated multiple times himself, including for covid, and his opposition is mostly directed at the common resort to vaccination of infants and children in their earliest years of development. He will be called upon to provide his reasoning, at minimum. As far as the value of this choice for Trump, I can feature it having several levels of advantage. First, Trump probably obtained Kennedy’s endorsement in return for the promise to nominate him to the post of H&HS head; promise kept, which means that he keeps RFK Jr. as a friend, instead of earning his enmity by betraying him or shining him on. Second, this is a definite nod to the anti-covid vaxx/”plandemic” base of Trump supporters—a constituency that happens to comprise a hefty number of American voters, and also one that’s been completely dismissed by the Democrats, often with gratuitous sneering. RFK Jr. is also pretty much a poster child for a Healthy Septugenarian American Male—and the appeal of that is not only a matter of superficial image, it’s also symbolically substantive. The potential positive value of RFK Jr. as a role model for the benefits of exercise, activity, and maintaining dietary discipline is not to be discounted. As for the recent McDonald’s photo op—that’s some real Machiavellian triangulation, with implications galore. Perhaps most cleverly, it signals that Dietary Puritianism is not going to be part of the Trump-Kennedy H&HS agenda, which is as it should be. RFK’s agreeing to the group photo op of him sharing a Happy Meal with the Trump Crew works as confirmation of what nearly all of us already know: even those of us committed to a healthy diet indulge once in a while, and turning up ones nose at food from McDonald’s is almost entirely about elite intramural status signaling. That snobbery that most Americans find so loathsome. (Bobby probably got the fish; that’s what I get. And the fries. We know to burn it off.) RFK Jr. is well known for not having a pristine record of sexual fidelity, and he also has a past history of drug addiction that eventually led to a commitment to sobriety. That past is less of a deal-breaker than it used to be. I’m inclined to doubt that Bobby Kennedy Jr. will be confirmed, but unlike Gaetz, I think he’ll be granted the national forum he wants in order to make his case about child vaccination, the perils of Big Pharma, etc.
(**I question whether Trump has all that much interest in trying to take that hill unless the Democratic opposition insists on riling him with a continuing drumbeat of accusations of collusion with Russia, or something along that line. If the Democrats persist with that one, they had better have the sort of smoking gun that they most certainly haven’t had in regard to previous attacks related to that narrative.)