Trump’s conservative picks
John Fund opines on the surprisingly conservative makeup of Trump’s picks so far:
“This is a more conservative cabinet than Reagan assembled in 1980,” says Ed Feulner, a key Trump transition adviser. As president of the Heritage Foundation at the time, Feulner provided guidance for Reagan’s choices. The conservative cast of the nominees thus far is somewhat unexpected, given Trump’s well-known reputation as a non-ideological thinker who has often backed big-government solutions. Plus, Trump was a registered Democrat until 2009. Indeed, Trump’s entire family is largely non-ideological.
I’ve been wondering about the same things.
Here’s what Fund thinks has happened:
1. During the campaign, Trump learned a lot about the country and how its economic vitality had been sapped and its foreign-policy standing eroded during the Obama years. “He now recognizes that the problems confronting the nation require bold reforms, and delaying the treatment will only sap his political capital,” former education secretary Bill Bennett says.
2. The refusal of previous GOP presidential nominees George H. W. Bush, John McCain, and George W. Bush to back Trump in the general election has liberated Trump from obligations; he owes very little to them or their followers. “An entire existing infrastructure of establishment Republicans are not favored to run cabinet agencies as would normally be the case,” a key Trump adviser told me…
3. The viciousness with which left-wing allies of Hillary Clinton and their media enablers attacked Trump persuaded the New York billionaire that there was no making peace with his adversaries. “He is not a traditional conservative, but he sure as hell knows who his enemies are,” a Trump aide told me.
Well, I don’t exactly agree and I don’t exactly disagree. I think all those things are correct. But I don’t think they are new. I think they describe ideas and characteristics that Trump had before his campaign ever began. In fact, I think that the first and second are among the very things (in addition to concern about immigration and the economy, which were enormous motivations for him) that motivated Trump to run in the first place.
The guy has a tremendous ego, of course, and that was part of it. But another part was the fact that he already perceived the erosions mentioned in #1, as well as the failures mentioned in #2, and he thought that “bold reforms” were needed, and he was the guy to do it. No one ever suggested that Trump wasn’t bold, including Trump.
None of that meant, however, that he would inevitably go in a conservative direction. After all, “conservative” isn’t usually considered a synonym of “bold,” although it can be related at times. But there are many other ways to be bold and iconoclastic than to be politically conservative.
The patterns of Trump’s picks that I see aren’t merely conservative, however. They are “possessed of real-world experience” (not necessarily in the exact field the person is chosen for), “speaking his or her mind,” “willing to dismantle what now exists (iconoclastic), “and “unexpected.” Trump likes to shake things up, and I think his idea is that these people will.
I also think the some of the conservative drift of the picks is due to the influence Trump’s running mate and transition head, Mike Pence. I think that over the months they campaigned together, Trump really grew to trust Pence’s judgment and advice. I don’t mean to suggest that Pence makes decisions for Trump, but rather that Trump respects and listens to Pence, and that Pence is a bona fide conservative.
It’s also the case that Trump has said—and will probably do—some things that are not conservative. But in terms of his Cabinet, it does have a marked conservative cast.
I would add to this – at one point in the campaign Gov. Kasich very insultingly said that he was offered to be president in all but name as a vice president.
I saw it differently. Trump has had a list of things he wants done since the 1990s. He knows how to delegate and he understands that he needs an insider with government experience. I think Pence was offered a very active Vice Presidency – handling a heck of a lot of minor but incredibly important stuff while Trump does the heavy lifting in terms of persuasion and the bully pulpit and the big issues.
Trump is also perfectly good at firing people who don’t perform to his specifications or who aren’t right for the immediate task at hand – witness Christie and the three campaign managers – and Pence looks to be sailing strong.
I agree that Trump will shake things up and that will be good for the country.
There were reports that the transition team for the Department of Energy was causing extreme concern because of the questions asked. The media reported that a witch hunt was going on because the team was asking about the organization chart and what people did. An essay on Watt’s Up with That lists the questions and they are all very logical and what a new manager to a company would be asking.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/12/10/the-doe-vs-ugly-reality/
As a person moves up in the business world, you don’t always stay in the same field, but you rely on your experiences to make you a better manager. As an auditor, consultant and manager, I learned to ask people “why”. An answer of “that’s the way it’s always been done” prompted a more detailed review of the position and the person.
Unfortunately, most of the picks (with some exceptions, like Sessions) are “conservative” in the GOP Establishment/Conservatism Inc./BigDonor/Wall St Journal Op-Ed/Military-Industrial-Complex sense. This is not entirely surprising, since – in spite of Trump’s anti-establishment schtick – establishment hacks like Giuliani, Christie, Fred Barnes and Stephen Moore climbed aboard his bandwagon without misgivings (at varying times).
Those of us who wanted to see a less donor/lobbyist driven Republican administration are probably going to be disappointed. Trump’s true believers probably won’t care, since they seem to have an absolute faith in the man.
I agree; his choices to date are encouragingly conservative. In addition another encouraging aspect of his cabinet choices is that they have proven competence in real world activities; and tend to be outside the DC/Academia bubble.
Speaking of those in a bubble. Read a quote from Bernie Sanders decrying the cost to the taxpayers (billion$) who have to subsidize the sub-subsistence level pay of Walmart’s workers. I mentioned that I had just made my annual contribution to Navy-Marine Corps Relief to subsidize the poverty level pay of junior sailors and marines. I suggested that those who agree with Bernie do the same for Walmart employees; or help them find other jobs for which they qualify.
There are reasons to be encouraged in these early days, but it is stil the season of “we’ll see”.
“Ingot” mentions something very important – delegation.
Proper delegation and decisiveness is something that has been lacking these last 8 years. Obama seemed to brush off a lot of things to his staff, but then delayed important military actions because he wanted to decide things (the drone attacks). What we saw in the media was Obama dealing with a lot of unimportant things – interviews with social media types, parties at the White House, vacations, fundraising, golfing, etc. But, I was always unsure if he was actively involved in the overall management of the country.
Attending the national intelligence briefings has been brought up in the media in recent days. Of course, the media fails to remind their readers/listeners that Obama skipped a lot of briefings. But they have their vapors over Trump not attending them every day. But, Trump has delegated that task to certain staff, probably with the understanding that a change in the overall situation has to brought to his immediate attention. But, I also suspect that once he is President, he’ll have more briefings since he will be able to impact the actions taken. For now, he is working on the transition and hiring people.
Liz:
Thank you for the link! The DOE climate snakes ought to be worried.
Well dif, why don’t you throw us a few names that you specifically would prefer, in each case, more than Sessions, Mattis, Kelly, Flynn, Pruitt, Carson, Price?
I said I like Sessions. Mattis, Flynn, Pruitt and Price are fine too. Kelly I have an open mind about.
Carson is not my cup of tea. The only thing he’s qualified for is surgeon general – a P.R. position.
The Labor pick has been an open borders shill in the past. I don’t trust his last minute conversion.
I do not like the picks for Treasury, Commerce, or State (assuming its the Exxon guy). Garden variety plutocrats with no agenda but enriching themselves. Especially the Exxon guy for State – foreign policy is not primarily about making deals for pecuniary gain. Lenin’s “selling the rope” saying is applicable here.
djf,
I understand your POV about Treasury, Commerce, SOS, and Labour. When it comes to Treasury, it will always be someone from one of the big banks, like it or not. I wanted Bolton for SOS but you can’t always get what you want.
OM – you’re welcome! It is an interesting list of questions and I would love to see the questions asked of other departments.
It is interesting to read the comments at WUWT, especially since people are wondering about the phrasing of “can you provide”. Some feel that it is a weak request while others think it is a got’em type question. To me, they are logical questions. Answer yes and you better be able to provide the answer. Answer no and you better be able to explain why since that was your job to know.
For example, this is the first question:
1. Can you provide a list of all boards, councils, commissions, working groups, and FACAs [Federal Advisory Committees] currently active at the Department? For each, can you please provide members, meeting schedules, and authority (statutory or otherwise) under which they were created?
This is Willis’ comment:
If I were at DOE, this first question would indeed set MY hair on fire. The easiest way to get rid of something is to show that it was not properly established … boom, it’s gone. As a businessman myself, this question shows me that the incoming people know their business, and that the first order of business is to jettison the useless lumber.
As Instapundit says…read the whole thing. Link is a few comments above….
Disclosure – I voted for Cruz in the primary and was very hesitant about Trump for the general. With everything I am reading, I am feeling better that some significant good changes will be happening.
I “heard”, therefore I cannot confirm, that a candidate for a cabinet position was asked a “what would you do…” type question. They could not answer and that person is no longer in the running for the position. I can relate to that type of interview since I would ask “what ifs” to see how people would react. The ones with the creative answers were the best hires.
They’ve been pretty good so far. Better than expected.
My only beefs are: 1) Uncertain Hillary prosecution. 2) 3 Goldman Sachs guys. 3) The Carrier deal.
As someone who was the lead in radition safety at a nuclear power plant I can testify that the bureaucrats at DOE, OHSA, and the EPA are just that – bureaucrats with little knowledge and petty personalities. The NRC personnel I dealt with over 25 years were the exact opposite. A strongly disinfectant bureaucracy house cleaning is long over due.
oops, radiation
@Liz – good link, thanks.
One thing missing in all that, unless I missed it – mission / vision the incoming Admin wants with the DOE.
The responses ought to be measured against fit for that, and all subdivisions within are themselves measured to their role in fulfilling said mission.
They also need to be measured tangible benefit against their impact / cost (monetary and non-monetary) – not just internal operations, but outside / private sector. This whole bit is probably missing in much of the programs / thinking that go on.
Like parker says, we are still in “We’ll see” territory.
Much depends if these people will / be free to pursue conservative solutions, or if they have to react to / decide to bend to trump’s desires / whims.
“When it comes to Treasury, it will always be someone from one of the big banks, like it or not.” – parker
You and I may recognize that as true, but it is not what trump campaigned on.
He made a YUGE deal out of Cruz’s wife working for Goldman, as just one example.
Like “Lock Her UP!” and “Drain the Swamp!” we will see decisions / action that run counter – some for good reason, some for questionable reasons.
Again, it comes back to “We’ll See”.
“The guy has a tremendous ego…”
I’ve yet to read about a candidate for ANY elective office that doesn’t have a tremendous ego. Even a small town unpaid Mayor believes him/herself smarter and more talented than ‘Jane ( or Joe ) Citizen’.
When a candidate tells you they only are in it for the good of the polity they are either lying or stupid or think that their voters are stupid.
Ego is the number 1 characteristic of those who feel the need to lead.
But I’m willing to admit that perhaps somewhere at sometime someone ran for – or bought – a political office out of selflessness. Anyone know of an example?
Tuvea:
Some tremendous egos are a lot more tremendous than others.
Saying Trump has a tremendous ego does not imply that other politicians are humble. But Trump’s entire life—long before he ever became a politician—is a testament to HUGE ego of a type rarely seen.
That doesn’t mean he couldn’t end up doing a good job as president. He could. We’ll see, as I’ve said many times.
I would not think that any of the sophisticated participants here would expect any candidate to adhere completely to campaign rhetoric. Things get said; eventually reality intrudes. The only politicians I can think of who did not compromise had names like Stalin, Castro, or Kim Jong-iL (I simply refuse to throw Hitler’s name into the discussion.) I hope no one cites Reagan who, for instance, issued the first amnesty for illegals.
@Big Maq at 7:33pm
Concerning the mission statement of the Trump Administration – I think the DOE questions are asking for basic information. If you state your mission at this point in time, then the answers will be skewed in that direction.
However, I would suspect that the team who wrote these questions do have a vision and will evaluating the answers to that vision and reporting up to the boss.
In rereading some of the questions, I am seeing many cues that the questions are asking about the costs and the benefits of the activity. In some questions, they are asking about the statutory authority for the function. If the function was not authorized by a law, and if there isn’t a good cost/benefit analysis to justify the activity, then it’s out.
I’m still waiting to read a report about the 25% of the government workforce quitting because of Trump. Are they just waiting for Jan 20th to turn in their letters?
Something that I find intriguing about the Cabinet picks so far, is the trend of people who seem to want to dismantle the departments they will lead.
I have no idea if this is what Trump has in mind. But there have been enough of them so far that I don’t think it’s coincidence. (It’s also instructive to see where this was NOT done — for example, I do NOT think Gen. Mattis has any intention of gutting the military.)
Time will tell, as we all keep saying…
@Liz – you may be taking an auditor’s view.
I didn’t specify that it has to be announced (or not) – only that one must have a well formed notion of what they think the mission ought to be. Otherwise, the leader won’t know what basis they have for deciding keep vs discard.
.
Even if one were to announce it, AFAIC, there is not much the others can “skew” if one is asking for objective measurements / facts.
The end result ought to be much the same anyway, regardless of pre announcing or not.
I would note that survey after survey in recent years has shown that the American people trust the American military more than any other group.
Neoneo
You once had a series on change of perspective and belief
You do not think this maybe happening with trump?
Here’s my own tentative, and very cynical, answer to the same question Fund asked.
Heinlein fans will, almost certainly, like it, as will people who have thought deeply about identities.
Oldflyer – I suppose there are politicians who don’t compromise, almost entirely unsuccessful ones, but all of the ones you named made many compromises. (So did Hitler.)
For example, one of Stalin’s opponents accused him of using “salami-slicing” tactics, of making a series of compromises in order to get what he wanted, bit by bit.
Huan:
It’s possible. But if so, the reasons for the change and the timing of the change remain unexplained. The reasons that Fund offers in his article aren’t likely, because they describe things that were present before Trump decided to run, and Fund thinks if there’s been a change it occurred recently.
By the way, for those more interested in such questions than I am — Steve Bannon is a Goldman Sachs alumni.
Wikipedia has the details, if you are curious.
(So far, I have found Bannon much harder to read than Trump, but I have some tentative ideas about him, already.)
Jim Miller:
Are you familiar with this article about Bannon, as well as this one? Worth reading both.
Huan, 10:37 pm — “You once had a series on change of perspective and belief. You do not think this maybe happening with Trump?”
Can’t/couldn’t help it: yet again, as soon as I saw your comment, I knew that the best answer here is, “we’ll see”!
neo-neocon – Thank you for those suggestions. As it turns out, I’ve read both articles.
I’ve also looked at Ben Shapiro’s attacks on Bannon, and Kimberly Strassel’s interview in the WSJ. Shapiro left me wanting to see other perspectives to either confirm or deny his arguments. (Here’s the Shapiro piece; the Strassel column, I read in the print edition, so I don’t have a link handy.)
Strassel’s column left me wanting to see more evidence for a different reason: Reading it made me suspect that Bannon had set out to con Strassel, and had mostly succeeded — but, if so, I was unable to see a motive for him doing that, in the way he did it. What, for instance, was the point of claiming that Trump was the greatest poltical orator since, of all people, William Jennings Bryan?
I expect this to be very interesting, no matter how ‘conservative’ the cabinet picks are. Time will tell whether or not Trump can do a creditable job. I suspend judgement for now. But I hope for a good Presidency. 🙂
Like many, I am generally, pleasantly surprised by Trump’s cabinet picks. But I find this the most insightful part of Neo’s analysis:
‘The guy has a tremendous ego, of course, and that was part of it. But another part was the fact that he already perceived the erosions mentioned in #1, as well as the failures mentioned in #2, and he thought that “bold reforms” were needed, and he was the guy to do it. No one ever suggested that Trump wasn’t bold, including Trump.”
I think this correct. And am relieved to now believe Trump’s motivation for entering the race was sincere. That he percieved the problems and felt he was the man for the job. I had been half convinced it was just a PR stunt that accidentally snowballed – not a good basis for optimism.
Jim Miller Says:
December 13th, 2016 at 12:20 pm
Keep in mind: Shapiro left Breitbart because of a HOAX ‘attack’ upon a gal.
In the fullness of time, … video popped up that TOTALLY refuted her assertions.
Yet, THIS, the hoax, was the sole basis for Mr. Shapiro to bolt.
Mr. Shapiro was upset that Mr. Bannon didn’t take the gal’s assertions seriously enough.
Oh, my !
blert:
Actually, if I recall correctly, Shapiro had been dissatisfied with the direction Breitbart had been going for quite a while. It had become completely taken over by Trump boosting, and he wasn’t one of the boosters. I think his leavetaking was really inevitable.
Blert:
Get your eyes checked, the video from Trump’s cameras did not support Corey’s story. But whatever, there will be so much more water to carry for Donald in the the future I suspect. So you may want to husband your strength.
One important aspect to Trump, both for and against him, is that he’s more interested in his own success than he is a political party (or ideology). An Obama or a Bush might make an unpopular decision in order to satisfy a partisan itch, or resort to party nepotism. Trump’s primary goal is the success of Trump: he’ll pick subordinates who will help him succeed first and foremost. He’ll do what is popular over what is philosophical.
What, for instance, was the point of claiming that Trump was the greatest poltical orator since, of all people, William Jennings Bryan?
Bannon’s psyche profile isn’t that difficult to assess. Bannon’s last patron was Breitbart. Get the picture yet?
Hitching his wagon to Trum by appeasing and flattering the Big Man, is a pretty easy thing for Hollywood Leftists or Democrats to do.
In the fullness of time, … video popped up that TOTALLY refuted her assertions.
Where this vid at?
You do not think this maybe happening with trump?
Sure Trum changed. He changed from a 70 yo Democrat to a 1 yo Republican.
OK, so maybe I missed the explanation for ‘Trum’. Is there a link, or is Ymarsaka just another scrollover?