He's good at it, and he enjoys it. President Donald Trump loves campaigning and lives for the adoration of his cheering, loyal supporters, so much so that he constantly reminds us that he won the election, "by the greatest margin ever." Campaigning before cheering fans is so much easier and more fun than governing. The presidency sets you up for annoying microscopic scrutiny, and the same kind of trashing that Trump and the media visited upon President Obama.
Trump's distaste for the arduous task of governing would be of less consequence if he selected experienced, competent people - he has selected a few - to put their shoulder to the wheel and get to it. But he campaigned on being an outsider, promising he would do it differently. He has indeed, with ambiguous result. His appointees thus far vary between the good, the bad and the ugly.
First, the good - a short list. This includes a veteran holding a post normally held by a civilian, and a non-veteran holding a post normally held by a veteran.
The law stipulating that the Secretary of Defense must be a civilian who has been out of the military for at least seven years was enacted for good reason. Gen. George Marshall, a key architect of WWII strategy and post-war European recovery, was exempted from this provision, also for good reason.
The Congress enacted another exception for former Marine General James Mattis. While one can have reservations about making such exceptions, Mattis has the confidence of the Congress and the public. In addition to his tough guy persona, Mattis is a scholar and has the spine to stand up to Trump. The general opposes torture, and has assured Iraq that the U.S. is not there to seize its oil. We can be comfortable with Mattis and his refusal to cave to Trump.
The Secretary of Veterans Affairs has previously been a veteran. Trump's appointment to this post, David Shulkin, does not have military service behind him. But that's no problem as long as he is experienced and competent, as he apparently is.
Another Marine general, David Kelley, is Secretary of Homeland Security. He admits that he faces a steep learning curve. That's encouraging, but we will have to see how he handles this difficult and sensitive post.
Nikki Haley as Ambassador to the U.N. lacks foreign policy experience but has thus far exhibited the right temperament. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, former CEO of Exxon-Mobil, lacks also lacks foreign policy experience, and his ties to Russia are questionable. But he seems to have the right temperament and potential to be good.
The Secretary of State position was briefly dangled before Mitt Romney, complete with a well-publicized dinner engagement. Predictably, Mitt was quickly dismissed. It's obvious that Trump was torturing and humiliating the hapless Mitt as revenge for Mitt's earlier insults of Trump. Trump is known for seeking revenge and he publicly achieved it with this ploy.
Trump's recent appointment of Gen. H.R. McMaster as National Security Advisor is acclaimed by critics as a good choice. This is in sharp contrast to the recently sacked Gen. Mike Flynn, bringing us directly from the good to the ugly.
We can take some comfort in that two of the ugly are already gone. The aforementioned Flynn was sacked as National Security Advisor after a mere three weeks. Secretary of Labor Nominee Andrew Pudzer dropped out prior to Senate hearings.
In a normal, even Republican, administration, Gen. Flynn, previously sacked from an earlier position as Defense Intelligence Chief, would never even have been considered as National Security Advisor. His role at the GOP convention in whipping up the crowd to lynch mob-type frenzy was way out of bounds for a presidential appointment as crucial as National Security Advisor. The mainstream media, asleep at the switch as usual, gave him a free pass. Only when he hung Vice President Mike Pence out to dry with his Russian connection did the media finally jump on him.
Totally overlooked were Flynn's many other deeds and statements that rendered him grossly unqualified for the job. General David Petraeus and Vice Admiral Robert Harwood, both credible candidates, declined consideration, ostensibly over inability to select their own staff on the National Security Council. Harwood also mentioned family considerations.
Armchair warrior John Bolton was considered for this post. He never met a war he didn't like, as long as he could view it from safe distance. He has no business serving the public in any capacity and has not yet been named to any post. Unfortunately, Trump promises to find a slot for him.
After the Flynn fiasco, and several qualified candidates refusing to be considered, Trump finally got Gen. McMaster to agree. The presumption is that he stipulated that he could name his own staff. This is a refreshing switch from the ugly to the good. McMaster is a proven combat leader and a scholar with a track record of challenging authorities, even at risk to his own career.
McMaster presumably will not suffer fools lightly. This includes not putting up with interference by "the two Stephens." This means Trump's senior policy advisor Stephen Miller, the abrasive 31-year-old kid who came from nowhere and has already demonstrated that he knows absolutely nothing. And it includes Steve Bannon, Trump's White House strategist who Trump inexplicably named as a permanent member of the National Security Council, a position which a political strategist has absolutely no business to occupy.
The National Security Advisor is a most crucial position as he has the closest ear of the President regarding security matters. Even the most ardent admirers of McMaster stress that he faces many challenges. The toughest challenge will be dealing with Trump and his reluctance to listen.
Next week: The good, the bad and the ugly, continued.
- John Waelti of Monroe, a retired professor of economics, can be reached at jjwaelti1@tds.net. His column appears Fridays in The Monroe Times.
Trump's distaste for the arduous task of governing would be of less consequence if he selected experienced, competent people - he has selected a few - to put their shoulder to the wheel and get to it. But he campaigned on being an outsider, promising he would do it differently. He has indeed, with ambiguous result. His appointees thus far vary between the good, the bad and the ugly.
First, the good - a short list. This includes a veteran holding a post normally held by a civilian, and a non-veteran holding a post normally held by a veteran.
The law stipulating that the Secretary of Defense must be a civilian who has been out of the military for at least seven years was enacted for good reason. Gen. George Marshall, a key architect of WWII strategy and post-war European recovery, was exempted from this provision, also for good reason.
The Congress enacted another exception for former Marine General James Mattis. While one can have reservations about making such exceptions, Mattis has the confidence of the Congress and the public. In addition to his tough guy persona, Mattis is a scholar and has the spine to stand up to Trump. The general opposes torture, and has assured Iraq that the U.S. is not there to seize its oil. We can be comfortable with Mattis and his refusal to cave to Trump.
The Secretary of Veterans Affairs has previously been a veteran. Trump's appointment to this post, David Shulkin, does not have military service behind him. But that's no problem as long as he is experienced and competent, as he apparently is.
Another Marine general, David Kelley, is Secretary of Homeland Security. He admits that he faces a steep learning curve. That's encouraging, but we will have to see how he handles this difficult and sensitive post.
Nikki Haley as Ambassador to the U.N. lacks foreign policy experience but has thus far exhibited the right temperament. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, former CEO of Exxon-Mobil, lacks also lacks foreign policy experience, and his ties to Russia are questionable. But he seems to have the right temperament and potential to be good.
The Secretary of State position was briefly dangled before Mitt Romney, complete with a well-publicized dinner engagement. Predictably, Mitt was quickly dismissed. It's obvious that Trump was torturing and humiliating the hapless Mitt as revenge for Mitt's earlier insults of Trump. Trump is known for seeking revenge and he publicly achieved it with this ploy.
Trump's recent appointment of Gen. H.R. McMaster as National Security Advisor is acclaimed by critics as a good choice. This is in sharp contrast to the recently sacked Gen. Mike Flynn, bringing us directly from the good to the ugly.
We can take some comfort in that two of the ugly are already gone. The aforementioned Flynn was sacked as National Security Advisor after a mere three weeks. Secretary of Labor Nominee Andrew Pudzer dropped out prior to Senate hearings.
In a normal, even Republican, administration, Gen. Flynn, previously sacked from an earlier position as Defense Intelligence Chief, would never even have been considered as National Security Advisor. His role at the GOP convention in whipping up the crowd to lynch mob-type frenzy was way out of bounds for a presidential appointment as crucial as National Security Advisor. The mainstream media, asleep at the switch as usual, gave him a free pass. Only when he hung Vice President Mike Pence out to dry with his Russian connection did the media finally jump on him.
Totally overlooked were Flynn's many other deeds and statements that rendered him grossly unqualified for the job. General David Petraeus and Vice Admiral Robert Harwood, both credible candidates, declined consideration, ostensibly over inability to select their own staff on the National Security Council. Harwood also mentioned family considerations.
Armchair warrior John Bolton was considered for this post. He never met a war he didn't like, as long as he could view it from safe distance. He has no business serving the public in any capacity and has not yet been named to any post. Unfortunately, Trump promises to find a slot for him.
After the Flynn fiasco, and several qualified candidates refusing to be considered, Trump finally got Gen. McMaster to agree. The presumption is that he stipulated that he could name his own staff. This is a refreshing switch from the ugly to the good. McMaster is a proven combat leader and a scholar with a track record of challenging authorities, even at risk to his own career.
McMaster presumably will not suffer fools lightly. This includes not putting up with interference by "the two Stephens." This means Trump's senior policy advisor Stephen Miller, the abrasive 31-year-old kid who came from nowhere and has already demonstrated that he knows absolutely nothing. And it includes Steve Bannon, Trump's White House strategist who Trump inexplicably named as a permanent member of the National Security Council, a position which a political strategist has absolutely no business to occupy.
The National Security Advisor is a most crucial position as he has the closest ear of the President regarding security matters. Even the most ardent admirers of McMaster stress that he faces many challenges. The toughest challenge will be dealing with Trump and his reluctance to listen.
Next week: The good, the bad and the ugly, continued.
- John Waelti of Monroe, a retired professor of economics, can be reached at jjwaelti1@tds.net. His column appears Fridays in The Monroe Times.
