Controversial Appointees, Clay Pigeons, and Successful Governmental Politics
When did conservatives last hear such widespread media opposition to a president nominating “unqualified, extreme, and controversial” appointees to high government positions? As a past Ronald Reagan Office of Personnel Management nominee, I can attest to the fact that he was rebuked as strongly as Donald Trump is today, including by old regime Republicans.
In both cases, the correct response is that the country was in deep peril and the establishment figures who could easily pass the elite political correctness test were not nominated. These establishment figures had proven they were unwilling to take the heat necessary to make the necessary reforms. Many, indeed, were part of the problem, benefiting from their own policies that had caused the decline.
In both situations, the Washington government itself had become the major cause of the nation’s problems and required radical reform. As a Reagan agency head in his revolutionary administration, we cut domestic bureaucracy by 100,000, reduced its retirement and health benefits, and based pay on job performance rather than merely on showing up. Reagan slayed hyperinflation by working with a courageous Fed chairman. He block granted 77 Washington programs to states and won the Cold War without firing a shot. All of which was opposed by that day’s media and elite experts.
It is not unreasonable to argue that the crisis facing President-elect Trump today is even worse than it was back then, as has been demonstrated often by The American Spectator alerts. Sixty percent of Americans simply have little trust in how the national government is run. The Constitution itself is under fire. Defense and foreign policy are in crisis. Basic government administration, legal and FBI administration, the economy, and social life policies are all fundamentally flawed. And each failure will require tougher leaders.
The fact is that the country is in dire need of bold leaders, especially for defense and intelligence, those with the daring to speak and act on the facts rather than play the Washington-style go-along-to-get-along game. In my introductory lecture to potential Reagan political appointee wannabees, I would ask them if they wanted to be a success in D.C. All agreed they did. My truthful response was, “Then don’t do anything and you will be remembered well.” In fact, Reagan’s best executives all ended up in “trouble” in the Washington go-along world. Reagan himself said courage was the essential attribute of leadership.
Today’s elite media, from progressive analyst E.J. Dionne Jr. to former “strong-government conservative” George F. Will, quickly label controversial Trump’s nominees as “ doozies” and “ghastly,” especially focusing on four among the scores. Why might they oppose appointees who might not leak inside information to them? Outsider Trump is wise enough to prefer a young and outspoken veteran who will raise controversial issues about military readiness to be secretary of defense. He chose a tough former Democratic congresswoman for director of national intelligence. A “vaccine skeptic” was proposed for the Health and Human Services secretary. And he supported a does-not-get-along-with-peers congressman to shake up the Department of Justice.
Defense is by far the most important national government responsibility and the one most in need of change. Every war crisis in U.S. history has required us to replace desk generals, who are experts in bureaucratic media survival, with real field generals, like Grant and Patton, who know war is about violence. Trump’s defense nominee, Pete Hegseth, was an Iraq and Afghanistan non-field grade infantry major and Bronze Star awardee and remains an Individual Ready Reserve officer. A Washington Post review of his book, The War on Warriors, seemed offended that Hegseth insisted that the mission of the Department of Defense was “the business of killing.” He even suggested the name be changed to its pre-1947 designation as the Department of War.
Like Patton, Hegseth spoke the truth rather than in Washingtonian euphemisms. The Washington Post conceded that “while he praises women’s historical service in noncombatant roles,” Hegseth opposed President Barack Obama’s opening combat roles up to women. He cited “biological differences between men and women, including greater muscle mass among men,” which he said made women “less apt for the demands of combat.” Men are “gasp, biologically stronger, faster and bigger,” adding that such combat “diversity” puts “everyone at risk.” And, “Men who are pretending to be women, or vice versa, are a [further] distraction” from the main defense mission.
Hegseth was involved in a he-says-she-says matter that was not prosecuted and has opposed Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion standards. He blamed the Joint Chiefs of Staff for adopting DEI for themselves and many other top positions. This, he argues, is relevant because it is a “signal to average men and women in the military that leaders care more about media attention than actual problems and people. Worse, by peddling the lie of racism in the military — which they knowingly did — they [the top military leaders] sully the reputation of an institution they purport to lead.” These days it may be too difficult to confirm someone to such a high government position who will speak this bluntly about military truths. But such rarity is essential for serious leadership in the country’s most important Cabinet position.
National intelligence is a close second in importance though. Wall Street Journal investigative reporter Holman Jenkins has demonstrated over the years, beyond any reasonable doubt, that these agencies have collaborated to improperly influence politics at least since 2016. They have especially targeted Trump for the past eight years, costing him reelection in 2020 and preparing the way for court cases and impeachment trials. Those illegal, hidden, and politicized spy net activities must be rectified. Director of National Intelligence nominee Tulsi Gabbard may just have the courage to take on the mission as a former Democratic congresswoman who is not afraid to take on enemy leaders. And I support anyone willing to accept this hazardous mission.
Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is certainly a wild card as secretary of Health and Human Services — one who is seriously critical of the “experts” at the Department of Health and Human Services, National Institutes of Health, and the Food and Drug Administration. Although his specific past positions can be questioned, he insists that he will follow Trump’s policies and rely upon his agency appointees, rather than merely supporting his own positions. Indeed, these very health bureaucracies have long been criticized on the Right. Sen. Rand Paul announced he will become the chairman of the Senate Committee on Health and will especially investigate the “COVID cover-up” and other health bureaucratization.
Rep. Matt Gaetz, of course, has withdrawn his nomination for attorney general and he certainly had opponents on the Right as well as the Left in Congress. But he still might have been worth the effort. Over the past four years, the simple fact is that the Department of Justice has been turned into the “department of political lawfare,” especially against the incoming president. It is not a coincidence that former attorney generals like Ed Meese and critic Bill Barr supported Trump for president as a result of this fundamental abuse of the law. Gaetz was not confirmable. We need someone with his conviction but without the baggage.
So much of this is up in the air since it is not clear what the appointment rules will be. However, the whole process actually may be much better planned than outsiders think. What is essential for nominees is to follow the law and presidential direction. Cabinet secretaries are leaders who must have good relations with the president and know how to explain programs through news and podcast media, as most of Trump’s top ones do. Few have deep technical knowledge and can leave these matters to strong administrative deputies, agencies, and assistant secretaries.
As perceptive mainstream media critic, Karen Tumulty has noted, controversial nominations actually could be “some kind of clay pigeon on Trump’s part” as a means to use the sympathy and chaos resulting from the failure of controversial appointees to assist the other less controversial nominees through the process relatively unscathed. If all is done early enough, as is the case now, the clay pigeons can prepare the way for the next appointees.
In politics, it is the big picture that counts.
Donald Devine is a senior scholar at the Fund for American Studies in Washington, D.C. He served as President Ronald Reagan’s civil service director during his first term in office. A former professor, he is the author of 11 books, including his most recent, The Enduring Tension: Capitalism and the Moral Order, and Ronald Reagan’s Enduring Principles.
READ MORE from Donald Devine:
What Are Serious Conservatives to Do About the Presidential Election?
What Cracked Up Conservatism in the 1990s, and What Can Recover It Today?
The Media Is Clueless About Shift Toward ‘Populism’
The post Controversial Appointees, Clay Pigeons, and Successful Governmental Politics appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.