Transition to Governing, 10

The real reason Trump picks unknowledgeable, inexperienced people for top jobs

Most “Transition to Governing” columns are for paid-subscribers only. But this one (#10) is available to all. Please do consider becoming a paid subscriber to support my work and so you have access to all of these posts. Previous columns in this series can be found here: Transition to Governing 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9.

---

In this post:

1. Compare Gabbard/Hegseth/RFK/McMahon/Patel to Barr/Bolton/Kelly/McMaster/ Sessions

2. My story of two job interviews

3. Assess a leader based on the company s/he keeps

---

Pundits have four explanations for Trump II personnel picks: The incoming president is choosing TV personalities, loyalists, disruptors, and/or agents of retribution.

These explanations aren’t wrong. In a few cases, it’s hard to come up with a reason the individual was selected other than telegenic-ness, fealty, agitation, or revenge.

But these explanations miss arguably the most important motivation: Mr. Trump wants people who know very little about the jobs they are taking. This is not an accident. It’s not a coincidence. In these instances, ignorance is a feature, not a bug.

I put at least 13 senior appointees in the “Know very little about the jobs they are taking” category.¹ It’s worth remembering that in Trump’s first term, the officials who got crosswise with (and therefore fired by) the president were often those who knew a great deal about their subjects and how the federal government deals with those subjects, e.g., Barr, Bolton, Kelly, McMaster, Sessions.

OK, so why is it that Trump doesn’t want seasoned, knowledgeable professionals in the most important jobs?

Because seasoned, knowledgeable people have strongly held positions in their areas of expertise. They know good ideas. They know bad ideas. They will fight for the former and against the latter.

People who don’t know the subject or the job very well will look for and readily accept direction from the boss. This is what Mr. Trump wants.

Two Stories: What Do You Know and Stand For?

I want to tell you two personal stories. They took place about 10 days apart more than a decade ago.

I was set to meet with an incoming governor; I was under consideration for that state’s top education post. Before interviewing with the governor-elect, I was asked to meet with his kitchen cabinet of education advisors. It was 10 men, each about 75 years old, most in flannel. For an hour I faced the most staggering set of bad ideas imaginable.

The men were passionate. And they were nice. But they didn’t know how state boards of education or state departments of education worked. They didn’t know what state content standards were or how they relate to state assessments or the state’s accountability system. They didn’t understand how the state’s school-funding formula worked. They didn’t understand how the state participated in federal programs. But, heavens, they had ideas.

I was still relatively young (in my 30s), but I’d been around. I’d worked on these issues at a state legislature, the U.S. House of Representatives, the White House, and the U.S. Department of Education. And I was currently serving as the deputy commissioner of education of a different state. I tried my best to be diplomatic—inquisitive but informed, firm but affable. I told them I understood and appreciated their intent, that I agreed about the problems they were trying to address. But I tried to explain how some of their proposals would face, errrr, challenges from the voters, the courts, parents, etc. I offered alternatives. They listened very politely.

Walking out of that meeting, I knew I’d failed. I was just glad that I had a chance with a different governor a week later—I was in contention for another state’s top education job, too.

Interestingly, it was a similar process. Before meeting the governor, I had breakfast with three of his aides. That had great suits and even better hair. The governor was widely considered a brilliant policy wonk; his aides were pretty sharp, but I quickly realized they knew less about education than they thought. It seemed like their knowledge and beliefs extended only as far as what the governor knew and believed.

They told me what the governor wanted. Firmly. Some of the ideas were quite good. Some were loopy. But I had some thoughts about how to get at his goals through other means. Unfortunately, I didn’t get to say much. They were on transmit, not receive, if you know what I mean. But they did want to know if I was a good soldier. I think I replied that I’m always a soldier for the right cause. That seemed to surprise them. They later asked if I would accept if the governor offered me the job. I said I was honored to be considered, but I didn’t know if I’d be the right match for him since he and I hadn’t talked yet. They were shocked.

I realized that they expected candidates to bend themselves to fit whatever the governor wanted. That’s just not in my character. But as importantly, I’d spent years and years thinking about, writing about, and working on these issues. I couldn’t imagine putting all of that aside to do whatever someone else wanted.

Leaders Reveal Themselves Through Hiring Choices

One thing you learn from being in government roles is that high-ranking officials and those who work for them are as susceptible to lousy ideas as anyone. They read incendiary headlines and then get a notion. They catch a cable-news segment and come up with a proposal. They have a friend at the gym who’s really smart and suggested…

I know this because I’ve been the uninformed person with the bad idea. I’ve also been the young aide tasked with transmitting and following up on bad ideas. And now I’m of the age where I try to quietly help really bad ideas end up in a drawer while helping people figure out how to accomplish important things.

After meeting with the 10 flanneled members of the first governor’s kitchen cabinet, I was, surprisingly, invited to meet with the governor-elect. He’d heard about that initial interview. He liked the way I handled myself and his advisors. That’s what he needed, he said. He offered me the job.²

In the second state, after meeting with the three sharp aides, I was not invited to meet with the governor. I subsequently learned that they thought the governor would be concerned about my “independent streak.”

I learned a few things about myself through these two processes—what I stand for, what I’ll tolerate, what I want to be appreciated for. But I also learned that you can tell a great deal about a leader by the characteristics s/he looks for in top hires—does the leader want someone experienced and principled? Confident and firm? Loyal and malleable? An independent voice? A yes-man?

Whether you love him, hate him, begrudgingly respect him, or let’s-wait-and-see him, you have to concede that Donald Trump is a fount of bad ideas. He knows little about governing or policy, he’s incurious, and he’s intemperate. He also watches a lot of cable news. And like all high-ranking officials I’ve met, he is surrounded by people who seem programmed to agree with him.

I firmly believe the only way he can succeed in governing is if he has cabinet-level officials who know a lot about their subjects and their jobs. And who, because of that knowledge, possess the standing—the résumé, backbone, practical wisdom—to stand up to him. They have to be able to generate good ideas; improve weak ideas; slow hastily developed, fast-moving ideas; shut down bad ideas. If Mr. Trump appreciated his own limitations, the strengths of others, and the difficulty of governing, he would have selected accomplished, knowledgeable, experienced officials to lead the federal government’s top agencies.

Instead, he has often chosen people who are loyal to a fault and who don’t know much about the jobs they will soon fill. That is an excellent way of ensuring that all ideas come from Trump himself and that those ideas are unquestioningly executed.

Even if the ideas are loopy. Or worse.

1. You land in this category if you have extremely limited experience with the subject and/or with the government’s role in the subject: Duffy, Transportation; Gabbard, DNI; Gaetz, AG; Hegseth, Defense; Kennedy, HHS; Lutnick, Commerce; McMahon, Education; Noem, DHS; Oz, CMS; Patel, FBI; Stefanik, UN; Turner, HUD; Zeldin, EPA

2. I didn’t take the job for personal and family reasons.