By Nick Catoggio
Wednesday, November 13, 2024
A notable quotable from the newsiest event in Washington
on Tuesday, our own Dispatch
Summit: “I am very encouraged by the early appointments by the
president-elect. These are all conservative men and women who will serve the
country well.”
The speaker was Mike
Pence. Given the way his time in office ended, you would think he’d be
gloomier about the direction of a second Donald Trump term.
After all, the reason he wasn’t back on the ticket this
year is because Trump wanted a vice president who won’t
serve the country well, no?
Maybe the former VP is an optimist by nature. But insofar
as his enthusiasm for Trump’s new Cabinet is based on something concrete, it
probably boils down to two words: Marco Rubio.
Rubio is Trump’s surprise nominee
to lead the State Department, leaving Reaganites who feared an isolationist
America-First-er taking charge of U.S. diplomacy relieved to see the job go
instead to a hawkish remnant of the pre-Trump era. Rubio has relevant
experience in spades too, having served for years as the top Republican on the
Senate Intelligence Committee.
If there’s any chance of preserving the Pax Americana,
which there
probably isn’t, it likely depends on having someone like him advising
President Trump. You can understand why a principled conservative like Pence
would be pleased to see him in the Cabinet and hopeful about what it portends.
But with all due respect, I think this misunderstands how
Trump’s appointees will function in a second term. It also misunderstands Marco
Rubio.
It’s tempting to slot Rubio into the “adults in the room”
niche occupied in Trump’s first term by figures like James Mattis, John Kelly,
Mike Pompeo, and Nikki Haley, offering wise (i.e. conservative) counsel to an
“erratic” boss to stop him from lighting the planet on fire. But I don’t think
that niche exists anymore. The “adults in the room” this time won’t be there to
advise, they’ll be there to take orders and provide a respectable public face
for whatever gonzo schemes Trump hatches.
As one Dispatch colleague said, Cabinet 2.0 is
likely to function as a coterie of glorified press secretaries tasked with
defending the actually meaningful decisions that are made in the West Wing. I
suspect Rubio understands that. And that Pete Hegseth does too.
The perfect nominee.
Hegseth
was tapped to lead the Pentagon on Tuesday evening, hours after Mike Pence
sounded his note of optimism. I’m guessing he feels less optimistic now.
It’s not that Hegseth isn’t qualified for the job. The
opposite, really: In many ways he’s the platonic ideal of a Trump Cabinet
nominee. He “looks the part.” He’s a slavish Trump apologist. And he’s very
good on television.
His career is a microcosm of the devolution of the
American right. He attended Princeton and Harvard (the populist-in-chief has
always had a thing for Ivy Leaguers) and served in the military. He was enough
of a hawk during the Iraq War era to have helmed the group Vets for Freedom,
which advocated
for George W. Bush’s troop “surge” in 2007. Future Never Trumper Bill Kristol endorsed him when he
ran for Senate in Minnesota in 2012.
That Senate run didn’t work out. A few years later
Hegseth landed at Fox News and a few years after that Trump landed in (or,
rather, on) politics. With two corrupting influences bearing down on him,
Hegseth became the sort of populist whose strongest
opinions on national defense have to do with “wokeness.” On the morning of
January 6, 2021, he was live on the scene of Trump’s pre-insurrection rally reporting excitedly
for Fox.
He’s never held a major leadership position that would
reasonably qualify him to lead the U.S. military. His most notable contribution
to defense policy during Trump’s first term came, ominously, when he lobbied
the then-president to intervene on
behalf of U.S. service members accused of being war criminals.
You can see why Trump likes him. He’s telegenic, has
years of practice at propaganda, and has shown a ruthless streak in military
conduct. That’s exactly what the new president wants at the Pentagon after the
highest-ranking defense officials in his first term, former Defense Secretary
Mark Esper and former Chairman of the Joint Chief Gen. Mark Milley, resisted
his impulse to open
fire on protesters. When Trump orders his new SecDef to politicize the
officer corps by purging “woke” generals and replacing them with loyalists
who’ll obey
him unquestioningly—and that order may
have already been drafted—he wants someone who’ll salute and not give a
second thought to the implications.
Pete Hegseth will do that. Kristi Noem, Trump’s nominee
to head the Department of Homeland Security, will do the same on immigration.
She too is conspicuously telegenic, at home doing national media after endless
appearances on Fox News, and famously possessed of a
ruthless streak. “She is inexperienced but loyal, a political lightweight
with no independent base of support or particularly long experience in
Washington, and she can be counted on to do what she’s told,” Tom
Nichols said of her in words that describe Hegseth just as well. It’s no
coincidence that an authoritarian wants people like that in charge of his
“bloodiest” business at the Pentagon and DHS.
Question: Is Marco Rubio really that different?
He’s more qualified than Hegseth and Noem are for the
position he’s been offered, certainly. But Trump doesn’t want Rubio at State
because he’s keen to build a “team of rivals” stocked with Reaganites who’ll
challenge his thinking on foreign policy. He’s building a team of loyalists who
won’t challenge him. Rubio and Michael Waltz, Trump’s pick for national
security adviser, spent most of their careers as hawks but have been at pains
recently to signal their newfound allegiance to America-First-ism. Each
contrived reasons to oppose
the latest military aid package to Ukraine, in fact, with Rubio complaining
that immigration should come first and Waltz questioning the White House’s
strategic objectives.
Like Noem and Hegseth, Rubio will do what he’s told.
That’s why opposition to his nomination has been muted in MAGA circles, I
assume. They know he’s a Reaganite at heart and find him suspicious for that
reason, but the great fear of an “adult in the room” converting Trump to his or
her worldview is absent this time. It’s not Trump who’s moved toward Rubio’s
foreign policy, it’s Rubio who’s moved toward his.
Populists have spent eight years watching the senator’s
hawkish impulses being slowly ground down by his partisan duty to to defend
their hero in increasingly obeisant, humiliating ways. In February Rubio
stooped to spinning Trump’s threat to let Russia invade NATO countries by
feebly objecting that “he doesn’t talk
like a traditional politician.” A toady pitiful enough to do that is
pitiful enough to do anything.
In March I considered the rumors of a
Trump-Rubio ticket and said this: “Any ‘respectable’ Republican who chooses
to ride the Trump carousel [by joining his next administration] will do so
knowing that the price of admission is agreeing to behave less scrupulously
than Mike Pence did on January 6 if and when called on to do so. Some ambitious
figures have made that pledge explicitly;
everyone who joins the administration will be making it implicitly. No one who
serves in the next Trump government will do so with honor.”
I don’t know if Pence himself realizes that, per his
comments at the Dispatch Summit. But I bet Marco Rubio, a telegenic
politician who’s quite good on TV, does.
Three-dimensional chess.
On Tuesday, Nichols speculated that Trump front-loaded
his Cabinet announcements by revealing the less objectionable nominees first
and saving the indefensible ones for later. Rubio at State, John Ratcliffe at
CIA, Lee Zeldin at EPA, Elise Stefanik as ambassador to the United Nations, and
Mike Huckabee (a Fox News alumnus who’s good on television!) as ambassador to
Israel: We can argue over whether these picks are “good” but it’s hard to argue
that any are dangerous. Even Ratcliffe, a Trump crony, gained relevant
intelligence experience in Trump’s first term.
Nichols fears it’s a smokescreen. “I am concerned that
this first pass is a head fake, in which Trump nominates people he knows are
controversial (such as Zeldin) but who are still confirmable, and then sends
far worse candidates forward for even more important posts,” he warned.
Hours after he wrote that, Trump shocked Washington by
naming Hegseth his nominee for the Pentagon. (“Who the f— is this guy?” one
mystified defense lobbyist told Politico
afterward.) Then Semafor
reported that the president-elect intends to nominate uber-crank Robert F.
Kennedy Jr. for a major Senate-confirmable office rather than stick him in the
West Wing as an adviser. As I was writing this on Wednesday afternoon, Trump announced that
his director of national intelligence will be Tulsi Gabbard, yet another
telegenic good-on-TV crank with a curious history of freelance
diplomacy with Bashar Assad and a taste for Kremlin propaganda. And then he
announced that
his attorney general will be—wait for it—Matt Gaetz, who’s not so telegenic but
very, very good on TV.
Was Nichols right? It sure seems like he was right.
I don’t know, though. Believing that Trump chose to roll
out his nominees in a deliberate sequence gives him too much credit for
strategic thinking, frankly. I don’t think he’s playing three-dimensional
chess. If anything, it’s one-dimensional.
Why, for instance, would he feel the need to
introduce his more credible nominees before introducing his less credible ones?
The idea that he’s trying to butter up Senate Republicans to support dubious
candidates like Hegseth, Gabbard, and Gaetz by offering them competent figures
like Rubio is wildly inconsistent with his persona. A victorious strongman
doesn’t believe that he needs to horse-trade with Congress. He believes that he
owns his party and the government and that his allies in the Senate should get out
of his way.
That was the point of his announcement
last weekend that he expects the Senate to facilitate recess appointments for
vacancies in the executive branch. Typically the president doesn’t start
thinking about recess appointments until well into his term, and only then if
the opposing party has managed to delay or block confirmation of his nominees.
That won’t be the case next year. Republicans will have 53 seats, which means
they’ll control the floor. And since filibuster rules no longer apply to
presidential appointments, Trump’s candidates can be confirmed by simple
majority without Democratic votes.
He shouldn’t need recess appointments. The fact that he’s
leaning into them anyway amounts to nothing less than asking
Senate Republicans to help him consolidate power. He wants them to ditch
their constitutional duty of advice and consent on presidential nominees and
let him appoint whoever he likes, without Senate input, through the recess
mechanism. Some of his nominees, like Hegseth, might be so grossly unqualified
that even a compliant Republican majority would be reluctant
to confirm them; the “recess appointment” gambit is his invitation to those
reluctant legislators to cede to him, the authoritarian executive, full
responsibility for ensuring that Cabinet members are fit to serve.
That’s not a man who cares about buttering anyone up.
That’s a man who’s going to get what he wants whether the Senate likes it or
not. If Hegseth or Gabbard or Gaetz can’t earn 51 votes initially, Trump will browbeat
and threaten the GOP majority until they acquiesce. And if they surprise us
all by holding out, he’ll either recess-appoint the nominee or use some
procedural sleight of hand to put him or her in charge in an “acting” capacity like
he did with other officials in his first term.
I’m likewise skeptical that Trump chose Rubio for State
reluctantly, as a sop to the right’s “sane” conservative faction in hopes of
purchasing their support for less sane nominees. There’s simply no meaningful
“sane” faction left, and insofar as there is, it doesn’t require appeasing; on
Election Day, Trump’s share of the Republican vote was only 1 point less
than Kamala Harris’ share of the Democratic vote. Whatever misgivings the
Reaganites at Mar-a-Lago or in the American heartland might have about Pete
Hegseth or Tulsi Gabbard of Matt Gaetz, they’re not going to do a thing about
it. And Trump knows it.
One-dimensional chess.
The straightforward one-dimensional-chess explanation for
why he chose Rubio, Stefanik, and the rest is that they’ve been devoted
bootlickers and he wanted to reward them for it. There’s nothing more
complicated to it than that.
Trump will be giving the orders on foreign policy in
consultation with J.D. Vance and Tucker Carlson, so why would he obsess over
who holds America’s formal diplomatic positions? As long as they’re good on
television and have proven themselves willing to defend anything he does,
they’re qualified.
Rubio and Stefanik fit the bill. Trump probably rolled
out their nominations early simply because they were easy picks. Possibly he
relished the fact that both, like Vance, criticized him harshly during his
early days in politics before becoming sycophants; seeing a Never Trumper bend
the knee has always seemed to tickle him. Or maybe he likes the idea of Rubio
and Stefanik as foreign-policy mouthpieces because they’ve spent most of their
careers as hawks and he’s hoping to leverage their credibility with hawkish
voters to sell his dovish, isolationist policies.
In Rubio’s case, the logic might be even simpler. Getting
him out of the Senate will create a vacancy in Florida which Team Trump is
plainly hoping to see filled by RNC Chair (and presidential daughter-in-law) Lara
Trump. The White House could gain functional control of a Senate seat in
the country’s third-most populous state if it succeeds in putting Rubio in the
Cabinet, which it assuredly will.
Even if Secretary Marco turns out to be less simpatico to
Trump’s agenda than I expect, the president can always do what he did to
figures ranging from James Comey to Jeff Sessions to Rex Tillerson in his first
term and fire him. How’s this for three-dimensional chess: What if Trump wants
Rubio at State because he knows he’ll be confirmed easily and can then be fired
and replaced at any time by a zombie loyalist as “acting secretary” who’s more
to Trump’s liking, like
Kash Patel?
If you doubt that he’s playing one-dimensional chess with
even the “bloodiest” arms of his administration, sit with this report on
Tuesday from Semafor’s Shelby
Talcott: “Seems like Pete Hegseth as Secretary of Defense deal came
together very quickly: Per source familiar, he was called yesterday and
interviewed for the position today.”
Trump likes Hegseth, appreciates his bootlicking, and
admires his ruthless advocacy for accused war criminals. What more did he need
to know to put him in charge of the U.S. military except whether he wanted the
job?
Because of Trump’s authoritarian ambitions, it may be
that his appointees end up wielding less influence over policy than those of
any president in recent American history. All “deals” on domestic and foreign
policy can and probably will be brokered by the West Wing. The Cabinet will
simply need to be good on television.
So as he continues to roll out nominees, I recommend
treating them not as cause to wonder how a particular department will function
but as cause to wonder just how humiliated the nominal head of that department
will end up. The world’s richest man, at risk of upstaging
America’s main character, has already been shunted
off to a pretend
“department” that will function as a toothless deficit
commission and may amount to little more than an
excuse to post memes. We’re eight days removed from the election and
already a top Trump deputy has cause to feel embarrassed. He won’t be the last.
No comments:
Post a Comment