This blog’s prior post asked Americans to move past partisan impulses that foment vehement opposition to each others’ sins. That focus will only deepen current divisions, possibly to dangerous levels.
Can we focus instead on the national ethos of the Declaration of independence, as a base for affirmative comity? Yes, of course real life problems -and politics – continue as they have been. The question is whether we might start acting, right now, to reduce the dangers and seed a new comity.
Point one is to delineate political interests, ideologies, and tastes from fundamental constitutional, ethical and moral concerns. Many like to think that their versions of the former equate to the latter; this intransigence only deepens the enmity around our politics. Donald Trump’s early nominations for cabinet positions afford an illustration of the difference.
Given Trump’s combative politics, most of his actions will be controversial and most will be provocative to his opponents. As one column puts it, outrage is the point. But outrage in return only deepens the divisions. Objections to any nominees need to focus on principle. If any pose a real danger to constitutional order, opposition is warranted. If they represent outrageous defiance but no real reason to fear abuse of power, efforts to block those appointments only paint all opposition as politicized.
White House staff appointments, such as Susie Wiles as Chief of Staff, Michael Waltz as national security advisor, or Steven Miller as Deputy Chief for Policy, are direct staff to the President. While we all have opinions about any public figure, these positions are beyond political purview.
As to Cabinet appointments, Elise Stefanik as Ambassador to the U.N, John Ratcliffe as CIA Director, Kristi Noem as Secretary for Homeland Security and Lee Zeldin for EPA, may arouse political dislike, but give no substantive grounds to try to block confirmation. Marco Rubio for Secretary of State fits a very normal, and well-qualified, profile for that post.
Pete Hegseth for Secretary of Defense has raised questions. Some note his lack of experience running large institutions, while William Kristol finds him unqualified in temperament. Other doubts have to do with his focus on cultural issues, which, as the Wall Street Journal says, should not be a central feature of a nominee. A big question is whether he will carry out personal vendettas of President Trump against generals who have criticized or opposed him. This relates to reports that the transition team is assembling a list of generals to be fired, and a proposed new board to review all senior generals and fire those it deems unworthy. Are they tools, not only for Trump to punish his opponents, but to turn the military into a politicized force for his narrow interests? In Trump team’s formal words this is not the case, but questions are valid for the confirmation process for Hegseth. What is not appropriate is a partisan stance a priori that Hegseth must be blocked solely on reputation or suspicion.
Matt Gaetz as Attorney General raises greater concerns, not only for his weak credentials and ethical and legal troubles. Here, Trump’s rhetorical threats of vengeance against opponents, plus Gaetz’ own track history, raise serious questions as to the intent of this nomination. Simple suspicion that he might do bad things is one thing, but the possibility that he would mobilize the power of the office for personal aims rather than the public interest, is plausible. The key to anyone raising these questions, though, is, again, to delineate the true public interest concerns from distaste and political interest.
Finally for now, the prospect of recess appointments, manipulating Senate recesses to get all Trump’s appointments approved without vetting, threatens constitutional integrity, and itself worsens our polarization. Principled opposition here is in order, and indeed may well have a consensus behind it.
Particularly in the latter cases, opposing truly unprincipled moves on principle, rather than opposing any nominations that merely reflect distasteful politics, is crucial. Principled opposition must not be tainted by association with the partisan. And the Gaetz nomination is raising truly bipartisan concern. That sign that most Americans, regardless of party, hold to principle and normal values, should set the tone for future opposition to this President elect. Real problems, we should understand and show, are shared by a consensus of Americans. That consensus should be nurtured by all sides. Left and Right, Democrat and Republican, are already fading labels. New camps, as they coalesce, should all start with acknowledgement that their differences are over means, and the core national ethos defines our ends. This attitude is a necessary first step to restoring comity in American politics.
Common Conviction 