By Nick Catoggio
Wednesday,
December 11, 2024
We don’t do hot takes at The Dispatch, but I’ll
confess to one that’s lukewarm: I’m coming around on Donald
Trump’s scheme to use recess appointments to avoid the Senate confirmation
process.
I still believe all of
his nominees should be confirmed, to be clear. Americans voted for an
authoritarian kakistocracy last month and they should have it. We owe it to
democracy to run this experiment, for better or worse. And if it goes as badly
as I expect, we’ll have the consolation of knowing that we deserve what we’ve
gotten.
But if you’re still naive enough to care about civic
norms, a case can be made that having Congress recess so that Trump can
temporarily fill Cabinet positions with whomever he likes would be marginally
less demeaning to the Senate than confirming his nominees would be.
Imagine you’re a Republican senator from a reliably red
state like, oh, say, Iowa.
You’re up for reelection in two years. Many a young, ambitious, amoral local
GOP official is jealously eyeing your seat, watching intently in case you do
anything to run afoul of Trump that might jumpstart a credible primary
challenge. You wake up one day to find that his nominee to lead the Pentagon is
one of the most comically unqualified candidates to lead a major department in
American history. What do you do?
If you vote no, you’re out of office in two years. If you
vote yes, you’ve betrayed your duty to ensure that the executive branch is led
by competent, civic-minded officials whose highest loyalty is to the
Constitution, not to the president; you’ve lent the prestige of Senate
confirmation to a nominee who’s plainly undeserving.
So why not vote to adjourn instead, washing your hands of
the matter and depriving that nominee of your vote yet staying on the right
side of Trump by letting him get his way through the recess mechanism?
“Because that would amount to the Senate abdicating its
‘advice and consent’ duty,” you might say, “which would also be hugely
demeaning and damaging to the chamber’s prestige.” Right, fair enough. But
making Donald Trump president again was destined to be demeaning for everyone,
including and especially officials in his own party. All we’re arguing about
here, and all we’re going to argue about for the next four years, is which of
several demeaning options before us is the least undignified.
If Senate Republicans are going to be browbeaten
by two-bit online demagogues into rubber-stamping a kakistocracy against
their better judgment, I think I’d prefer that the process be as dubious,
illegitimate, and discrediting as possible. It would have the virtue of
honesty, too: Since the right believes that Congress shouldn’t restrain Trump
in any way, letting him appoint nominees autocratically through
recess-appointment chicanery while the Senate looks the other way would
accurately reflect how the modern GOP functions.
Let’s talk about that senator from Iowa. Both senators
from Iowa, actually.
Abdication of duty.
If there’s any Republican in Congress who you’d think
would place the public interest over Trump’s, it’s Chuck Grassley.
Grassley was first elected to the House in Iowa shortly
after Richard Nixon resigned the presidency. He was first elected to the Senate
on the day that Ronald Reagan won a national landslide over Jimmy Carter. He
celebrated 40 years as a federal lawmaker in 2015, a few months before Trump
officially entered presidential politics.
He’s 91 years old. In 2022 he ran for and easily won an
eighth term in the Senate at the age of 89. His 50th anniversary as a member of
Congress is weeks away.
His longevity as a public official is grotesque,
particularly in a party that supposedly disdains career politicians, but it
does give Grassley an advantage over his colleagues as Trump prepares to take
office. Unlike them, he has virtually nothing to lose by resisting the incoming
kakistocracy.
He’s probably (probably!) in his last term. Even if he
isn’t, he’s an Iowa institution and won’t face voters again until 2028. And
having spent his first 82 years in an America that expected better from its
presidents than postliberal droogs like Pete Hegseth or Kash Patel, he should
be primed by long experience to want to hold the new White House to that higher
standard.
Even the threats and intimidation that Trump’s Republican
enemies routinely receive from populist fanatics might be a bit more
muted in Grassley’s case given his advanced age.
He has absolute freedom, in short, to vote against
unqualified Cabinet nominees. And he should want to: As the Senate GOP’s elder
statesman, he might inspire the youthful septuagenarians around him to defend
their institutional prerogative of advice and consent more vigorously by
leading the charge himself. In offering himself as a target of criticism from
the base, he’d be acting as a political heat shield for more vulnerable
colleagues who want to oppose Trump’s nominees on civic grounds but feel skittish
about doing so.
Instead, Grassley is leading the Senate’s capitulation.
Earlier this month he gave Trump cover to oust FBI Director
Christopher Wray, undermining Congress’ design to insulate FBI leadership
from political pressure. And rather than use his leverage to at least demand a
qualified replacement, Grassley turned around and appeared to endorse
the ludicrous Trump lackey Patel, cooing to reporters that “he has been so
very, very helpful to us on uncovering wrongdoing in government, particularly
in the FBI and the Justice Department.”
Maybe an elderly senator is being led around by the nose
by MAGA-fied aides, or maybe Grassley simply can’t bear to end his career as a
villain to Iowa Republicans after spending decades as his state’s most powerful
politician. Regardless, read John
Bolton’s op-ed today about his experiences with Patel and tell me how
Grassley’s acquiescence in this nomination isn’t a total abdication of civic
duty by a traditional Republican who’s supposed to be better than the loathsome
postliberal New Right.
Pressure campaign.
If Grassley feels no obligation to take his Senate duties
seriously, go figure that Joni Ernst, the junior senator from Iowa, might
conclude that she needn’t either.
Ernst was the designated villain in last week’s populist
passion play involving Hegseth. She’s a veteran and a survivor of sexual
assault, which made her naturally skeptical of a Pentagon nominee who’s never
managed a major organization, has been accused by sources at Fox News of having
a drinking problem, and who bought
the silence of a woman who accused him of sexual assault in 2017. He’s not
just unqualified for the job, he’s anti-qualified. And he’s
not alone.
Even foreigners have noticed. “In the madness of Trump’s
nominations, there is expressed the near total contempt for human respect,
customs and the law,” former French ambassador to the U.S. Gerard Araud said
earlier this month. Vladimir
Solovyov, the most influential propagandist on Russian state television,
was giddy in his agreement: “What an excellent team is coming along with Trump!
Not with respect to Ukraine, but as far as everything else goes. If they are
allowed to get in, they will quickly dismantle America, brick by brick. They
are so great!”
Obviously America can and should do better to lead
the Pentagon—and the FBI, and Health and Human Services, and the Office of the
Director of National Intelligence. Ernst knows it. But the Two Minutes Hate
directed at her after she made disapproving noises about Hegseth apparently
turned her to jelly. “How do I make this go away?” she was said to
whine after MAGA influencers threatened her with a primary if she opposed
his nomination. Trump “associates”
reportedly approved a grassroots pressure campaign against her and cackled
to reporters afterward about its success. “Joni, I’m told, got the message
loud and clear,” one boasted.
She did. Within a few days, she sounded considerably
more optimistic about Hegseth than she had before.
Is it really more demeaning for Ernst to sign off on a
recess-appointment scheme to get Trump’s nominees confirmed than to cast an
insincere vote in their favor coerced by some of the
worst people in American politics? Either way, she’s betraying her duty to
ensure that the executive branch is led by capable, respectable people. What
does it matter which procedural mechanism she uses to do so?
If she and Chuck Grassley are unwilling to lose their
jobs for the sake of doing right by their country, the least they can do is
make a mockery of the process by which the new ruling kakistocracy is
installed.
A matter of precedent.
“But think of the precedent that would set,” you might
say. To which I say: Think of the precedent Trump is setting now.
Whether the Senate confirms his nominees the
old-fashioned way or allows them to be appointed via recess-appointment sleight
of hand, every future president will set the bar at the level of Hegseth and
Patel in demanding deference from senators from his or her party in the
confirmation process. Going forward, no behavior will be deemed too slavish and
cutthroat, no résumé found too underwhelming, to justify denying a nominee a
position of immense power. Friendly senators will be asked to abandon all pretense
of independent judgment in vetting them.
Of course, if you believe Sen. Tom Cotton, there’s
nothing new about that. “Of the 72 Cabinet secretary nominees since the Clinton
transition, only 2 nominees have ever received NO votes from the
president-elect’s party,” he noted in a
tweet on Monday. “No one should be surprised that the Republican Senate will
confirm President Trump’s nominees.” That’s cute—but misleading twice over.
It’s misleading because presidents typically withdraw
“problematic” nominees rather than force senators from their party to cast
an uncomfortable vote to confirm them. Trump himself did so less
than a month ago, although it was a cinch that he’d soon lose patience with
recalcitrant Senate Republicans and begin trying to intimidate them to get his
nominees confirmed. His party exists to serve him, not vice versa, so he’s far
more willing than presidents have been historically to dare his allies to vote
his candidates down. No matter how much political trouble that causes them.
Cotton’s tweet is also misleading, though, in how it
glides over just how different Trump’s Cabinet is from traditional Cabinets. It
may be true that only two of 72 Cabinet nominees since the Clinton era have
been opposed by senators from the president’s own party; it’s also true that
only one president over that period has thought to put America’s most notorious
anti-vaxxer in
charge of public health or to make his son’s ex-girlfriend the country’s top
liaison to Greece or to quiz nominees on their enthusiasm
for the coup he once attempted. Being asked to confirm James Mattis as
secretary of defense isn’t the same as being asked to confirm Dr. Oz as head
honcho of Medicare.
A president who takes his duty to appoint capable people
less seriously than his predecessors should logically receive less deference
from the Senate.
But this is what Cotton does whenever Trump behaves
inexcusably: searching for some value-neutral reason to excuse him anyway.
After January 6, Cotton was out in front arguing that the Senate should
acquit Trump on jurisdictional grounds, because—supposedly—the chamber
couldn’t properly try a president who had left office before the trial began.
He’s doing the same thing now to justify supporting horror shows like Hegseth,
Patel, and Tulsi Gabbard. He’s obliged to support them, you see, not because he
believes they’ll do a good job but because there’s an alleged tradition of
blind partisan loyalty among senators that he’s duty-bound to follow no matter
how unqualified those nominees might be.
Someday, when he’s 91, Cotton will be rubber-stamping the
nomination of President Barron Trump’s new secret police chief. Once you’ve
rationalized supporting one kakistocracy, supporting the next one—and the one
after that, and the one after that—is easy.
A gang of five?
Having said all that, there are a few Republican senators
who might muster the nerve to send Trump’s worst nominees packing. I think of
them as a potential gang of five.
Forget Grassley, obviously, and forget Sen. Thom Tillis,
who’s shown flashes of integrity but is up for reelection in 2026 and is
plainly willing
to swallow his soul to get reelected. The gang of five starts with Susan
Collins and Lisa Murkowski, both of whom voted to convict Trump after January 6
and both of whom are more insulated from MAGA political pressure than most of
their colleagues. Collins represents a blue state in Maine and is probably the
only Republican capable of winning there, and Murkowski won reelection in
Alaska thanks to a ranked-choice voting system that favors centrists.
Each could plausibly win another term despite opposing a
Hegseth or Patel. The other three potential gangsters could not; the question
is, do they even want to?
Mitch McConnell is in Grassley’s position, well into old
age and likely in his last term. Unlike Grassley, though, he despises Trump and
has been willing to spend political capital on traditional Reaganite priorities
like supporting Ukraine. When he was asked recently about the new
administration’s foreign policy, he replied,
“No matter who got elected president, I think it was going to require
significant pushback, yeah, and I intend to be one of the pushers.”
No one expects much from him after he rolled over on
convicting Trump at his impeachment trial and endorsed his reelection campaign,
but insofar as McConnell is looking to leave any sort of meaningful anti-Trump
legacy, being “one of the pushers” against Trump’s worst nominees is an obvious
possibility. By doing so he would provide cover for more vulnerable Senate
Republicans to follow suit, a job he’s used to after so many years as majority
leader. And he can’t care much at this point about populists hating him as a
result: They already hate him passionately and have for ages.
The fourth and fifth would-be gangsters are Sen. Bill
Cassidy of Louisiana and Sen. Todd Young of Indiana, each of whom has opposed
Trump in surprisingly public ways in the past. Cassidy joined Collins and
Murkowski in voting to convict him at his impeachment trial; Young was vocally
skeptical of another Trump presidency last year and declined
to endorse him for the GOP nomination this spring. It’s rare for red-state
senators to do the right thing when that means crossing Trump, but they’ve
proved that they’re willing to risk primary challenges to do so.
One or both might plausibly decide that they’re tired of
being asked to behave like trained animals in Trump’s Republican circus,
resolve not to run for reelection, and opt to vote their conscience on his
anti-qualified nominees. And if they did, they’d be the difference between
confirmation and rejection.
But apart from those five, the odds of anyone else in the
conference opposing kakistocracy are slim. John Curtis, the new guy from Utah
who’s replacing Mitt Romney, is worth keeping an eye on, as Republicans in that
state tend
to be more civic-minded than the national tribe (although not always!).
But it’s asking a lot of a freshman to expect him to make a bitter enemy of
Trump in his first weeks on the job. The last person who did so found himself out
of politics within a few years.
We should keep expectations low. “It might work in this
situation [for Hegseth],” one Senate Republican told Politico
of the MAGA pressure campaign against Joni Ernst, “but long term, it is not in
the president’s interest” to play hardball with senators from his party. I can
imagine Trump reading that and cracking up laughing, wondering how gutless a
human being has to be to demand anonymity when pretending to talk tough and
comparing it to how Republican senators sound
when they’re on the record. Almost certainly, he and his kakistocracy are
going to roll right over them.
No comments:
Post a Comment