NYT: Trump Pretty Much Offered to Let John Kasich Run the Government

[astorian]

Up front: I have been wrong, DEAD wrong, about Donald Trump many times in the past 12 months. For starters, I never really thought he’d run for President and didn’t think he’d stay in the race very long.

Why? Because fundamentally, I have always thought he’s a dilettante. I never took seriously the idea that he wanted to run the US government or anything else.

Well, as wrong as I’ve been on many counts, it seems I was absolutely right about that. Donald Trump wants to be ELECTED President, but apparently he doesn’t actually want to DO much as President.

How Donald Trump Picked His Running Mate (Published 2016)

Trump’s son offered John Kasich the VP slot AND told Kasich, in effect, “Dad doesn’t have any interest in the nuts and bolts operations of the government. He’s more of a hands-off, Chairman type. He’d let YOU run everything.”

And what would Donald be doing? Oh, making America great or something.

Is this comforting or disturbing? Neither? Both?

What this tells us is that, even if he’s elected, Trump isn’t going to implement ANY of his most controversial policies because he isn’t going to have the time, energy, patience or interest to do the work of passing legislation. That’s a task for underlings. He’ll just be King Donald, the figurehead monarch.

If you’re a Mexican or Muslim, I suppose you can breathe easier, knowing his talk about walls and deportation was just bluster that he’ll never actually try to make a reality.

But that raises the interesting/troubling question… who’d be in charge in a Trump administration? Somebody? Anybody? Would we have a lot of big egos running THEIR turf (Christie at Justice, Giuliani at Homeland Security…) like tyrants with NOBODY on top supervising them?

[Fotheringay-Phipps]

Every president does that, to a large extent. And every CEO or other head of a major organization.

The point of the leader is to decide on direction. The nuts-and-bolts are executed by people further down the line.

Normally it’s not the vice president specifically who executes things - it would be the chief of staff or someone like that. Trump probably really wanted Kasich as VP candidate and offered to make it him as an enticement. But it would have been someone other than Trump in any event.

[John_Mace]

Yep. Trump might want to be president, but he doesn’t actually want to be president.

[BobLibDem]

@Fotheringay-Phipps

Every president does that, to a large extent. And every CEO or other head of a major organization.

No they don’t. Think LBJ working the phones to get Civil Rights passed. Or JFK during the Cuban missile crisis. Or Obama making the call to get bin Laden. We haven’t had many bystander presidents and probably none since the 19th century. What Trump proposed is unprecedented.

[Czarcasm]

@Fotheringay-Phipps

Every president does that, to a large extent.

No, every president does not, unless mentally or physically incapacitated, step back and let the VP run the country. Where the hell did you pull that “fact” from?

[elucidator]

@Fotheringay-Phipps

…The nuts-and-bolts are executed by people further down the line…

Well, yeah, like “Big Dick” Cheney! Fuckin’ executed an entire country!

[running_coach]

@Czarcasm

No, every president does not, unless mentally or physically incapacitated, step back and let the VP run the country. Where the hell did you pull that “fact” from?

*hands **Czarcasm *wet wipes and hand sanitizer

[Czarcasm]

@running_coach

*hands **Czarcasm *wet wipes and hand sanitizer

Not even if you hand me an asbestos welding glove.

[Fotheringay-Phipps]

@BobLibDem

No they don’t. Think LBJ working the phones to get Civil Rights passed. Or JFK during the Cuban missile crisis. Or Obama making the call to get bin Laden. We haven’t had many bystander presidents and probably none since the 19th century. What Trump proposed is unprecedented.

Per the OP, what Trump was proposing what that he would be a “chairman type”. That’s pretty much SOP for presidents. A president steps in on occasion and makes key decisions or lobbying and such, but the nuts and bolts are handled by staff.

Not sure if you followed the ACA legislative process all that closely, but Obama’s approach was pretty much “just put together something that can pass and I’ll sign it”. (He took some heat from congressional Democrats for this alleged lack of leadership, but it was a matter of scale more than a fundamental difference in approach.)

@Czarcasm

No, every president does not, unless mentally or physically incapacitated, step back and let the VP run the country. Where the hell did you pull that “fact” from?

Can I ask you a question?

I don’t see how it’s at all possible that anyone could read my first post and take from it that every president “step[s] back and let[s] the VP run the country”. In fact I explicitly said the opposite, in the first sentence of my third paragraph. So why would you misrepresent my words so blatantly? Did you really manage to misread that?

[Ravenman]

@Fotheringay-Phipps

That’s pretty much SOP for presidents.

No. It isn’t. Most Presidents make sure that the VP’s role is precisely defined as “not doing everything the President is supposed to do, but instead discrete tasks.”

Not sure if you followed the ACA legislative process all that closely, but Obama’s approach was pretty much “just put together something that can pass and I’ll sign it”.

This is probably the most exceptional circumstance for any major legislation that I can think of. Even for the stimulus bill that passed a year before the ACA, the President was very much involved in those negotiations – he didn’t just pass the issue off to someone else.

Can I ask you a question?

I don’t see how it’s at all possible that anyone could read my first post and take from it that every president “step[s] back and let[s] the VP run the country”. In fact I explicitly said the opposite, in the first sentence of my third paragraph. So why would you misrepresent my words so blatantly? Did you really manage to misread that?

I think you’re not understanding the criticism. Everyone agrees that the Vice President never runs the country. What you said was that the President normally hands off everything but the setting of big ideas. That’s categorically untrue, and it boggles my mind how the historical record can be spun to support such a position.

Reagan was intimately involved in congressional relations. Bush I spent a huge amount of time managing foreign relations. Clinton was a detail-obsessed nerd on every major policy debated during his Administration. Carter offered advice on how to fix the Three Mile Island situation due to his experience as a nuclear naval officer. LBJ twisted more arms than an Olympic wrestler. The examples go on and on.

The idea that President generally make a few speeches and then take a back seat from there is fantastically misinformed. Instead, Presidents choose (or have thrust upon them) several issues at any given time that they work very hard on, and out of necessity have others take the lead on issues they don’t have time for.

What Trump apparently offered was to have Kasich take the lead on virtually everything. If true, that is exceptional and truly bizarre.

[Fotheringay-Phipps]

@Ravenman

I think you’re not understanding the criticism.

I think you’re not understanding my issue here. My issue here is that I explicitly said “Normally it’s not the vice president specifically who executes things - it would be the chief of staff or someone like that”, and someone then turned around and pretended I had said “every president […] unless mentally or physically incapacitated, step[s] back and let[s] the VP run the country”. I can’t fathom why someone would do that in good faith, and I asked the guy about it. You have a different issue, then pretend the prior question was directed at someone else. Which, in fact, it was.

Everyone agrees that the Vice President never runs the country. What you said was that the President normally hands off everything but the setting of big ideas. That’s categorically untrue, and it boggles my mind how the historical record can be spun to support such a position.

Reagan was intimately involved in congressional relations. Bush I spent a huge amount of time managing foreign relations. Clinton was a detail-obsessed nerd on every major policy debated during his Administration. Carter offered advice on how to fix the Three Mile Island situation due to his experience as a nuclear naval officer. LBJ twisted more arms than an Olympic wrestler. The examples go on and on.

The idea that President generally make a few speeches and then take a back seat from there is fantastically misinformed.

You’ve put it two different ways here, and there’s a big difference between “setting of big ideas” and “make a few speeches”. I said the first, not the second.

IOW, Trump would decide we need to build a wall. Kasich would take the lead on working out the details with congress etc., with perhaps some input from Trump on key details or negotiating.

IOW, like any other president, except with Kasich serving as a sort-of Chief of Staff.

[Carter was, as you say, a detail-obsessed micro-manager. Not sure why you would bring him up - this was widely thought to be a major undoing of his presidency.]

[Bone]

@Fotheringay-Phipps

Can I ask you a question?..

Responding to what you think someone wrote is a much easier target than what they actually wrote.

[Ravenman]

@Fotheringay-Phipps

IOW, Trump would decide we need to build a wall. Kasich would take the lead on working out the details with congress etc., with perhaps some input from Trump on key details or negotiating.

IOW, like any other president, except with Kasich serving as a sort-of Chief of Staff.

You just don’t understand the role of Presidents and the Chief of Staff. I have no idea where you’re getting these ideas. History shows that Presidents are incredibly active on issues that they see as signature issues, and typically want to be more active on more issues if they had the time. This is at odds with your ideas, and what Kasich was presented with (if those reports are accurate).

[Carter was, as you say, a detail-obsessed micro-manager. Not sure why you would bring him up - this was widely thought to be a major undoing of his presidency.]

Clinton was equally obsessed with details, and a highly effective president. Same with LBJ. I raise the issue of these presidents because their Administrations are totally at odds with (using my words here) your conception that Presidents just dream big ideas and leave the work to others. This is factually wrong: Presidents do a hell of a lot of work themselves, but it’s simply a fact that they can’t do it all themselves.

As far as why I’m jumping in on a comment that you directed at another poster; I’m not weighing in on the precise statement by that other poster. I’m weighing in because you’ve now made several posts asserting that Presidents generally think big thoughts and the Chief of Staff handles the implementation. That’s in error, which is why I’m saying something.

[Fotheringay-Phipps]

@Ravenman

You just don’t understand the role of Presidents and the Chief of Staff. I have no idea where you’re getting these ideas. History shows that Presidents are incredibly active on issues that they see as signature issues, and typically want to be more active on more issues if they had the time. This is at odds with your ideas, and what Kasich was presented with (if those reports are accurate).

OK, we apparently disagree here.

But IMO it makes no difference if presidents delegate because they’re not interested or because they don’t have the time to deal with everything. Bottom line is that they delegate. Since you apparently agree that presidents do quite a lot of delegating, it’s not clear why you think it’s a big deal if Trump does even more.

[Personally I’d much rather have Kasich running the government than Trump, so I don’t see the horror in any event …]

As far as why I’m jumping in on a comment that you directed at another poster; I’m not weighing in on the precise statement by that other poster. I’m weighing in because you’ve now made several posts asserting that Presidents generally think big thoughts and the Chief of Staff handles the implementation. That’s in error, which is why I’m saying something.

I objected to the specific statement made by that other poster, in distorting and misrepresenting my words. If you’re not going to defend that distortion, then make your comments independently of that, instead of attacking my comment as “not understanding the criticism”.

[Ravenman]

@Fotheringay-Phipps

But IMO it makes no difference if presidents delegate because they’re not interested or because they don’t have the time to deal with everything. Bottom line is that they delegate. Since you apparently agree that presidents do quite a lot of delegating, it’s not clear why you think it’s a big deal if Trump does even more.

It matters because the President is expected to be in charge of domestic and foreign policy, not merely a dreamer who has people to handle that stuff.

We’ve also seen examples of what happens when a President checks out of the role of being in charge of national policy. Iran-Contra, for example.

[CarnalK]

Fotheringay-Phipps, did you read the linked article?

When Kasich’s adviser asked how this would be the case, Donald Jr. explained that his father’s vice president would be in charge of domestic and foreign policy.

Then what, the adviser asked, would Trump be in charge of?

“Making America great again” was the casual reply.

Putting someone else in charge of domestic and foreign policy goes a step beyond merely delegating.

[Fotheringay-Phipps]

@Ravenman

It matters because the President is expected to be in charge of domestic and foreign policy, not merely a dreamer who has people to handle that stuff.

We’ve also seen examples of what happens when a President checks out of the role of being in charge of national policy. Iran-Contra, for example.

Sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn’t. It depends on who you are and who you’re delegating to.

As it happens Obama has frustrated the heck out of his foreign policy people by off-the-cuff pronouncements that he made out of left-field without thinking things through clearly (e.g. his Syria chemical weapons “red line” declaration). And Trump would by all indications be a lot worse. If you ask me, the more he delegates to guys like Kasich, the better.

@CarnalK

Fotheringay-Phipps, did you read the linked article?

Putting someone else in charge of domestic and foreign policy goes a step beyond merely delegating.

I’m up against my monthly limit of NYT articles, and went with the OP.

[leftfield6]

If you can read that article, and say “meh, I’m not concerned about that”, then I just don’t know what to say. Yes, all Presidents delegate some things. No, the degree of responsibility that that article indicates would have been passed to Kasich is not really delegation. It’s a passing what the ACTUAL FUCKING JOB is.

We don’t need a figurehead in the White House, we aren’t voting on a freaking King here, with a PM under him doing all the actual work.

[John_Mace]

@leftfield6

If you can read that article, and say “meh, I’m not concerned about that”, then I just don’t know what to say. Yes, all Presidents delegate some things. No, the degree of responsibility that that article indicates would have been passed to Kasich is not really delegation. It’s a passing what the ACTUAL FUCKING JOB is.

We don’t need a figurehead in the White House, we aren’t voting on a freaking King here, with a PM under him doing all the actual work.

What??? Somebody better tell Trump that SOON!!!

[The_Other_Waldo_Pepper]

@leftfield6

If you can read that article, and say “meh, I’m not concerned about that”, then I just don’t know what to say. Yes, all Presidents delegate some things. No, the degree of responsibility that that article indicates would have been passed to Kasich is not really delegation. It’s a passing what the ACTUAL FUCKING JOB is.

But I’d rather have Kasich doing that job than Trump. I mean, yeah, I’d rather have Hillary Clinton doing it than either of 'em, but I’m less concerned about someone else doing the job for Trump than I am about Trump doing it. I figure that Trump is best who governs least; and, if he can delegate it all away, that Trump is best who governs not at all.