Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 40 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Trump Team Won’t Hire People Critical of Trump
When I first read the title of this article, I scratched my head, because I had to ask, why would Trump want to hire people who weren’t supportive of him? But then I looked into the likely reasons behind the article, and the reasons Trump’s team was going to pick people who were loyal and supported him, and it made sense.
How many times did we learn of people betraying Trump in his first term? Trump admitted that his personnel decisions seriously handicapped him his first time around. We heard about Rex Tillerson, John Kelly, Jim Mattis, John Bolton, Nikki Halley, Mike Pence, Gary Cohn and Anthony Scaramucci, who made the betrayers’ list, to name a few. They either worked against him when they served, attacked him after they left the government or were dismissed, or leaked information to the media.
His screeners have been ridiculed by observers:
Trump officials, reportedly mocked by some in government as Soviet-style ‘MAGA commissar’ have reportedly fanned out across federal agencies and asked existing staff about their political positions and whether they previously backed Trump or supported his campaigns.
Some people suggest that this type of screening will lead to Trump hiring a bunch of “yes men;” in response, I’d suggest that Trump, in his transparent way, will let people know that they don’t have to agree with him on everything, but they have to tell him the truth and accept his final decisions. He may or may not use their input, but unless they are always antagonistic, I suspect their jobs will be safe.
Trump is entitled, as people have said when his Cabinet picks were interviewed, to pick the people he wants. The Senate has the option of accepting or rejecting them. But I think Trump has learned his lessons on picking personnel who will support him and enhance his presidency.
He’s getting it right this time.
Published in Politics
A lot of people who have never led a large team seem to think that “yes men” are the ones who tell the leader what the leader wants to hear. Such people exist, but no real leader wants them around. The “yes men” a leader wants are those who understand who makes the final decisions, who is responsible at the highest level, who will take the heat when things go wrong, and that it won’t be them. They do their research and give their best advice as they are paid to do. Then, they salute and follow orders even when their advice doesn’t prevail.
Very well said, Django. But you can bet the Left doesn’t see the situation that way.
And if they find that they can’t do that, they resign, rather than cause chaos etc.
That assumes they have a sense of duty/honor, but yes, they should.
It is extraordinary how the idea of a professionalized civil service carrying out the will of the elected President no matter her party or priorities has morphed into the idea of the ‘civil’ ‘service’ as a fourth branch acting as a check on the (conservative) President.
Long before the impeachment crisis here in Korea, one of the constant criticisms I heard of President Yoon was, “He only appoints people who support him.”
I always replied, “Wouldn’t you?”
Nikki should get a pass.
Probably not from Trump. She was angry about something Trump did or didn’t do re Jan.6.
One of my neighbors, who suffers from TDS, re-posted on her Facebook page a photo showing Trump in a Hitler hat, with a list of all the terrible things that are going to happen now that we’ve elected a fascist. One of the items (besides “making all birth control illegal”) was “staffing government with MAGA bootlickers.” I can assure you that this silly woman never worried about Obama or Biden staffing their administration with bootlickers.
These people are unbelievable. I can’t fathom what makes them so nasty and intolerant. Sigh.
Some really are unhinged, and they don’t hear anything from the media that would moderate their nuttier views. I suppose one possible benefit of this is that they won’t learn anything from the last election, thus making it more likely that they will lose more. But when I see this over-the-top stuff being believed by people, I do fear violence. I fear more assassination attempts.
I guess we can only pray that Trump gets the protection he needs. The crazies will keep on crazy-ing.
Wasn’t Rubio critical of Trump? Yet Trump nominated him for Secretary of State . . .
Only in the initial campaigning. And Trump was nastier to him during that time. I don’t think he had issues with people who ran against him.
isn’t this true of most administrations. FJB had people who lied about his mental state for years.
In 2016, Trump (like everyone else) was caught off guard about winning. He relied on GOPe to help him select candidates for the cabinet – it was a hit or miss at best.
The pluses and minuses of not being a politician or part of the deep state…
Trump seems almost unique in the political world in that he seems not to hold grudges. Once an issue is settled, he puts it behind him and moves on. Probably a good part of why he is successful. BTW, I don’t consider his actions regarding the “deep state” to be grudges, just something that needs to be done.
I was talking about campaigning. He holds lots of grudges against people who dissed him during his first term.
He learned that there were a lot of people in his first administration whom he couldn’t trust, and he is not reticent about naming them in interviews when asked. At this point, I think he is content to make sure they have no interactions in the future.
Trump may be an old dog, but he can learn new tricks, and adjust his behavior accordingly.
Contrast with Hillary and Biden who were completely captured by their ideologies, blind to consequences, and unwilling to change their stance on anything.
Except to move farther left. Such as when they were against same-sex marriage, until they were for it.
They weren’t bootlickers, they were toe suckers.
Except shift even more to the left.
EDIT: Looks like @kedavis already said (“wrote”–keyboarded) the same thing in #21.
Don’t confuse “yes men” with loyal men. There is a difference. Trump doesn’t respect “yes men” but he values loyalty. The “chaos” in the first administration was him bringing in people with different views. He let them argue their sides then picked one. Chaos was also perpetuated by leakers who leaked what was going on or who leaked distorted versions of what was going on.
Excellent distinction to make, RH. Thank you.
So which of those would describe you, if we got the gendering right. Have you ever been critical of a Trump action? If so, can you provide a URL?
Probably would have disliked one you liked. Point me towards any you liked.
Early in his first term, Trump asked James Comey for loyalty. Comey replied that he would have to be honest. Trump replied by asking for “honest loyalty.”
Comey provided dishonest disloyalty instead.
As icing on the cake, Comey was appointed to be a professor of “Ethics” at William and Mary University, after Trump fired him.
Good grief. That’s pathetic.
No, predictable – he depicts the ethics the left has and wants taught.