Transition to Governing, 8
The Gaetz debacle and why you should stop saying "But they'll shake things up!"
In this post:
Gaetz withdraws but this will repeat
Two of my recent articles
Why “They’ll shake things up!” is a terrible defense
You can find the previous columns in this series here: Transition to Governing 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7.
Gaetz and the Massive, Unnecessary, Unforced Error
Matt Gaetz was completely unqualified to be attorney general. He should have never been selected. His withdrawal is welcome. But this episode reveals much about Trump II, namely that it’s headed toward being just like Trump I: Undisciplined, uninformed, erratic, and its own worst enemy. The smallest amount of vetting would have prevented this—even a few conversations with Gaetz’s colleagues in the House. A small dose of prudence would have prevented this.
Supporters of Mr. Trump should be angry. This waste of time and political capital was unnecessary—not to mention the embarrassment of the entire affair. Worse, the very things that led to the selection of Gaetz led to the unwise selections of Hegseth, Gabbard, and Kennedy. I would wager a fair amount that the Trump team did insufficient vetting of these three, so I won’t be surprised if upcoming revelations provide more evidence that they are unfit for their offices.
Obviously, this phase of the transition is not an isolated incident. This is a pattern. Inadequate attention to the things that matter leading to huge mistakes. As I wrote a week ago, this is governing by Bongcloud. It is not good for this administration. It is not good for America.
The Confirmation Process and Public Colleges Producing Leaders
Over at The Dispatch, I have a piece running this morning explaining the basics of the confirmation process. Per the Gaetz news, I included some other famous examples of nominations going sideways:
President Joe Biden’s nomination of Neera Tanden for Office of Management and Budget director was pulled back, as were Trump’s first-term nominations of Andrew Puzder, Chad Wolf, and Ronny Jackson; Obama’s nominations of Bill Richardson and Tom Daschle; and George W. Bush’s nominations of Linda Chavez and Bernie Kerik. In rare instances, the full Senate votes to reject a nomination. This occurred with John Tower (George H.W. Bush’s selection for secretary of defense in 1989) and Roger Taney (Andrew Jackson’s selection for secretary of the treasury in 1834). These are in addition to withdrawn or rejected judicial nominees, like George Carswell in 1970, Robert Bork in 1987, and Harriet Miers in 2005.
And in City Journal, I wrote this week about the invaluable role played by public colleges and under-appreciated private universities in developing public leaders.
The media’s focus on a small set of elite privates fails to spotlight the work of two other types of schools. First, it ignores public universities, especially flagships. Indeed, according to my research, the Universities of Texas, Arkansas, Georgia, Mississippi, and Wyoming educated more public officials than did most Ivy+ schools. Second, it sidelines the impressive performance of many non-Ivy+ privates, such as Brigham Young, Creighton, Willamette, St. Olaf, Suffolk, University of Denver, and Seton Hall, which are producing many American leaders.
Stop Saying “But They’ll Shake Things Up!”
When ardent supporters of Mr. Trump come to admit that Matt Gaetz and several other nominees are wholly unprepared for their high-level appointments, they often fall back on the “But they’ll shake things up” defense. This argument can be used by anyone angry at the system and hoping to make the case for a leadership role for an inexperienced outsider.
I believe the thinking goes something like, “Experienced insiders have caused today’s problems, so the solution is a cadre of aggressive amateurs who haven’t been shaped or captured by the system.”
I’ve had lots of government jobs, so I’ve seen lots of folks with the aggressive-amateur profile. They generally have great confidence, care deeply about one or two issues, and honestly believe they can wrestle the bureaucracy into submission.
But it quickly becomes apparent that they know very little about the organization they’re entering or the work that organization does. They find themselves utterly lost in most meetings. They believed that the organization only focused on the one or two issues they care about, so they have little knowledge of the 998 other issues. They don’t know what questions to ask, and they don’t know where to dig in.
They also know little about the organization’s processes, and they know even less about general governing processes. They don’t know much about government budgeting, OMB passbacks, the role of general counsels, administrative law judges, guidance letters, administrative rules…
Because they see themselves as brash change agents, they alienate lots of people. Fast.
And, maybe most important of all, because of all of the above, their instincts on policy matters (outside of their pet issues) are often unreliable. Because they haven’t spent any time learning about, much less actually working on, a whole host of topics, they don’t know what positions to take. They don’t know the reasons for or against taking various positions. “Shake things up!” isn’t a position.
So we need to stop acting like lack of preparation is a virtue.
If you want to get something done, elevate people who know how to get things done.