How one political outsider picked a cabinet
Trump’s efforts to fill the top jobs in his incoming administration bring to mind those of Dwight Eisenhower, who was the last person elected president without having earlier served in elective office.
The Ike cabinet was wealthy, too
Eisenhower, a moderately conservative Republican elected in November 1952, came to the White House from a career spent almost entirely in the military. His brief stint as president of Columbia University from 1948-50 was the one break with that pattern.
Like Donald Trump, Ike and many of his top aides had no previous experience in public office. Also like Trump, Eisenhower tended to be impressed by people who had risen to the top in realms other than politics. As a result, the senior ranks of the Eisenhower administration were filled with people who had achieved distinction in such fields as the military, business, law and education. Almost of them were quite affluent.
Liberal Democrats responded by dismissing the Eisenhower cabinet as “eight millionaires and a plumber.” “A plumber” was a reference to the new labor secretary, Martin Durkin, who had previously headed the Plumber’s Union.
That put-down didn’t faze Eisenhower. He felt government would be well served by successful men, who tend to be rich. If the leaders of successful businesses were excluded from consideration, he wrote in his diary, the result would be an inability “to get anybody to take jobs in Washington except business failures, political hacks and New Deal lawyers.”
Tense relations with GOP establishment
Also like Trump, Eisenhower had an awkward relationship with much of the Republican Party establishment. GOP members of Congress didn’t view him as a regular Republican and resented his defeat of an establishment candidate, Sen. Robert Taft of Ohio, at the 1952 GOP national convention.
That situation led Ike to make some nominations to please what was then called the party’s “Old Guard,” which was committed to the ideal of a small, inexpensive federal government and modest international commitments. The single most famous example was Eisenhower’s selection of a running mate – then California Senator Richard Nixon.
Like Mike Pence, Nixon was Ike’s chief emissary to partisan activists and GOP members of Congress. New Hampshire Governor Sherman Adams, Ike’s choice for White House chief of staff, had a much more tense relationship with members of Congress. The hostility of GOP congressmen to Adams eventually led to his ouster.
Distinguished backgrounds, but inexperienced
Eisenhower’s choices for the three most important cabinet posts were all consistent with his preferences and the need not to antagonize more traditional Republicans.
For Treasury, Eisenhower named Cleveland banker George Humphrey. Humphrey sympathized with the Old Guard but was a practical man who distrusted theories of all kinds and so did not demand big changes in tax and spending policies of the sort more conservative Republicans would have liked.
Eisenhower’s secretary of state, John Foster Dulles, had made a distinguished career at a big corporate law firm in New York City. He had built lasting relationships with prominent Republican officeholders, whom he advised on foreign policy issues. He would make a major impact on U.S. foreign relations while serving as head of the U.S. State Department.
For Defense, Eisenhower tapped the CEO of General Motors, Charles E. Wilson, thinking that Wilson’s success in running the world’s biggest automaker would prepare him well to run the huge American military.
Ike’s other cabinet picks fit with that same overall pattern.
For example, his choice for secretary of agriculture, Ezra Taft Benson, sounded quite fiscally conservative, but went along with continuing the big federal subsidies for farmers that New Dealers had earlier begun. Rather than do away with the popular farm price supports program, Benson pushed for changes to ensure that the money flowed to successful farm operations rather than more marginal ones that Benson believed ought to go out of existence.
Eisenhower’s first choice for secretary of labor, Martin Durkin, lasted less than a year because he tended to view every policy decision from the point of view of the union he had once headed, rather than what was best for labor or the country as a whole. Dissatisfied, Eisenhower quickly replaced Durkin with the head of personnel administration for Bloomingdale’s Department Store, James P. Mitchell. Mitchell proved to be a highly effective administrator.
Not forgetting some diversity
Eisenhower, also like Trump, made some efforts to achieve a diverse team, although diversity in the 1950s had a more limited meaning than it does today.
Ike appointed a woman to his cabinet, something his predecessor, Harry Truman, had never done. Oveta Culp Hobby, who had served with distinction as the head of the Women’s Army Corps during World War II, became Eisenhower’s first Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare.
Ike tapped Frederic Morrow for a professional post in the White House, the first African-American to hold such an appointment. Morrow was an administrative officer for special projects, especially those that related to the black community.
Trump’s choice of South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley as U.S. ambassador to the United Nations and African-American Ben Carson to serve as Secretary of Housing and Urban Development parallels the earlier Eisenhower-era approach.
Who wasn’t picked
There is also a parallel between Eisenhower and Trump with respect to the people each man tended not to consider.
As a career military man, Ike was sensitive to concerns that he could upset the proper balance between civilian and military influence in the government if he appointed a lot of other people with military backgrounds to his cabinet. For that reason, very few former military men served there. Instead, he tended to employ them either as informal advisers (International Red Cross Head and former Army four-star general Al Gruenther was one) or as White House staffers (with Army General Andrew Goodpaster as an influential example).
Trump, for his part, appears to be sensitive to concerns that he not appoint business leaders only to his Cabinet, given Trump’s background in business, lest that upset the proper relationship between business and government. And so some key advisers with business backgrounds appear likely to advise him informally or, in his son-in-law Jared Kushner’s case, by working at the White House. In Kushner’s case, that will only work if that doesn’t run afoul of the federal anti-nepotism statute.
Trump has leaned more than Ike did toward hiring military leaders, such as retired Army Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn for national security adviser, Army Gen. James N. Mattis for Secretary of Defense and Marine Corps Gen. John F. Kelly for Director of Homeland Security.
What is striking, too, about both Eisenhower’s approach and the emerging Trump one to choosing top subordinates is the limited presence of experienced GOP politicians. There were three in Eisenhower’s cabinet: Sherman Adams, who had been governor of New Hampshire; Richard Nixon; and U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Henry Cabot Lodge, who had previously served as a U.S. senator from Massachusetts. Trump’s cabinet doesn’t include a lot of professional politicians either.
Like Eisenhower in the 1950’s, Trump today conceives of himself as a GOP president committed to broadening the party’s base beyond its core constituencies. That tended to lead Eisenhower then and Trump now to put a certain amount of distance between the presidency and the GOP establishment in making senior appointments.
While that helped Eisenhower build broad popularity with the voting public and may help Trump do the same, it increased tension between his administration and Republicans in Congress. Trump may well face a similar problem; opposition to his candidacy among Republicans in the House and Senate was even greater than what Eisenhower experienced.
Trump’s next 100 days will dictate whether he can be re-elected or not — here’s why
According to CNN pollster-in-residence Harry Enten, Donald Trump's next 100 days -- which could include an impeachment trial in the Senate -- will hold the key to whether he will remain president in 2020.
As Eten explains in a column for CNN, "His [Trump's] approval rating has been consistently low during his first term. Yet his supporters could always point out that approval ratings before an election year have not historically been correlated with reelection success. But by mid-March of an election year, approval ratings, though, become more predictive. Presidents with low approval ratings in mid-March of an election year tend to lose, while those with strong approval ratings tend to win in blowouts and those with middling approval ratings usually win by small margins."
After Trump: No free pass for Republicans — they own this nightmare
With the impeachment inquiry leveling up this month as public hearings begin, and with an election that might actually be the end of Donald Trump now less than a year away, the campaign to let Trump's Republican allies — even the most villainous offenders — move on and pretend this never happened is already underway.
This article first appeared in Salon.
Sadly, the clearest articulation of the let-bygones-be-bygones mentality has come from a Democrat — unsurprisingly, former Vice President Joe Biden.Biden, who is still, somehow, the frontrunner in Democratic primary polling, spoke at a chi-chi fundraiser on Wednesday, and dropped this pearl of wisdom: "With Donald Trump out of the way, you’re going to see a number of my Republican colleagues have an epiphany."
As climate crisis-fueled fires rage, fears grow of an ‘uninhabitable’ California
As activist Bill McKibben put it, "We've simply got to slow down the climate crisis."
With wildfires raging across California on Wednesday—and with portions of the state living under an unprecedented "Extreme Red Flag Warning" issued by the National Weather Service due to the severe conditions—some climate experts are openly wondering if this kind of harrowing "new normal" brought on by the climate crisis could make vast regions of the country entirely uninhabitable.