Printable View
https://www.wired.com/story/trump-ho...ancies-acting/
Ethical and democratic concerns notwithstanding, this is dangerously stupid. Either you want a functioning national security apparatus, or you want incompetent sycophants in key national security related positions—you can't have both.
President Trump has no interest in competency. Or the good of this nation, for that matter.
He also thinks only chumps give out "permanent" positions. All staffing is/should be "temporary" or "acting" in his view.
He'll be the gift that keeps on giving. And if Trump is no longer president after 2020, his successor will no doubt be blamed for Trump's mistakes.
And if Trump gets re-elected -- Republicans will look the other way as he fills positions with unqualified loyalists, as seen on Fox & Friends. :eek:
I never really got this. Outside of the issue of needing to get Senate confirmations of his appointments (which, aside from some really awful choices, have more or less gone through), there's literally no advantage to temporary positions. All of these positions serve at the pleasure of the President - there is zero job security whether the position is 'acting' or not, and acting positions have sharply circumscribed abilities to make meaningful change in their organizations. He seems to actively work to undermine the authority and effectiveness of his top level officials. You can even see it in action when senior cabinet members and advisors publicly air their frustrations. It's maddeningly illogical; I've heard arguments that this is a concerted effort to weaken the executive, but I really don't think it's that calculated. I think that he just has some weird fetish for these acting appointments that I can't completely understand.Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy
This isn't some weird GOP fever dream of European bureaucracy where you can't fire these people.
It is a weird fetish, but one where I think he doesn't quite make the jump to even the "permanent" positions having no actual job security. Even if he knows that's true it doesn't [i]feel/i] like he gets the same "rule by fear" thing which he's been so fond of in other spheres. And maybe in some respects it is true they have more job security since they start building up ties to friends in Congress in a way that acting figures have a harder time doing? And then confirmation hearings may provide opportunities for his ego to get bruised. It's so easily wounded that he may simply be protecting himself from what he perceives as criticism by bypassing the submission and approval process entirely.
There's nothing weird about it. It's an effective way to get easily controlled loyalists with dubious qualifications into power with a minimum of fuss. Easily controlled loyalists are important because they let the Trumps enact their frequently shady agenda without institutional pushback (both by steering their respective institutions toward or away from matters as needed, and by instilling fear among civil servants who have reservations about orders of questionable legality). Getting people with dubious qualifications is important both because relevant qualifications are associated with greater independence from Trump—and greater likelihood of siding with institutions against Trump, eg. because they know what the law requires of them—and because it's not easy finding competent people willing to work in the Trump admin. A minimum of fuss is important because confirmation hearings are distracting, are likely to expose the admin's inability to find competent officials, and come with a risk of failure. It's only weird if you're clinging to some hilariously outmoded belief in the awesome power and quality of American institutions.