I get he’s a dominating kind of guy, but it’s not like these most of these aides of his are going to starve if he fires them. Most are professionals of one kind or another and could easily get jobs elsewhere. Why is almost no one willing to call him out when he starts doing something idiotic? Why are grown men and women so petrified of him? Why won’t anyone say directly to his face “You have to stop this nonsense!”
Are his subordinates really that craven and cowed?
It’s true that Republicans are cowards, but that’s not why putting up with him. They’re putting up with him because he’s willing to sign the legislation Republicans want him to.
Yes, Trump is willing to sign legislation that will increase their personal fortunes; he’s also willing to instruct federal law enforcement entities to look the other way while the cabinet members pursue ‘business opportunities’ that will also increase their personal fortunes.
What makes you think no one in his Cabinet has “stood up to” him? Are you privy to all their interactions?
They still have their jobs.
This is my major point. Just because it’s not getting passed around on social media or the blogosphere doesn’t mean there have not been some hard conversations along the way.
I can think of a couple cases where things look like someone actually did stand up to him. Trump campaigned on bringing back torture. His position wavered back and forth after he interviewed Mattis for SECDEF. Ultimately Trump stated that he believed in torture’s effectiveness but was deferring to Mattis. Tillerson and Mattis, when forced to publicly comment in the confirmation process, veered away from Trump campaign positions on foreign policy including Russian sanctions. Nothing has changed on sanctions to this point. National Security Advisor isn’t currently cabinet level but works at that level. We don’t have direct evidence of what conversation(s) happened but after McMaster assumed the role the changes to the NSC Principals Committee that Trump had made were reversed.
The job of a cabinet official is to carry out the President’s plans not argue with him that those plans are wrong.
I don’t think standing up to him works. Trump has gone almost his whole life without people telling him “no”. Trump has been stood up to before, but rarely, and it doesn’t seem to take. I have no doubt Trump’s advisors screamed at him not to attack a Gold Star family, but he went at least two days before listening to reason. (Sadly, that kind of behavior doesn’t lose elections any more.)
Trump gave the cabinet secretaries their jobs, and they can only really control things in their own sphere.
Trump’s closer aides are supposed to be able to “control” him, but we don’t see it happening. His chief of staff (his chief aide) constantly fears for his job, and sticks to Trump’s side like clue so he can hear if anyone badmouths him. Furthermore we’ve seen that Trump will isolate himself and announce things without telling his staff about it. (Many of his senior staff had no idea Comey was going to get fired.)
Christ, will someone PLEASE show us the evidence of Trump ever having anything like a hard conversation on anything, ever. And now he’s suggesting he has tapes of some conversation with Comey? Dear god please let there be tapes of that and everything else.
I believe the phrase is “absence of evidence is not evidence of absence”
When it comes to Trump’s intellect, I think we have a fair amount of “evidence of absence.”
Not really. A good cabinet secretary will argue with the president, even if the final decision is the president’s and not his. And a good president will want his cabinet to challenge him.
Exactly.
A good cabinet official will advise the President. But the OP was talking about calling him out when he starts doing something idiotic and telling him to stop this nonsense. That’s going far past the point of advising or even arguing.
There are plenty of people in this country, including me, who are saying Donald Trump is an idiot. He doesn’t need his cabinet to break the news to him.
In the sense his opponents intellect seen to become absent when dealing with him.
It was widely reported that in a rare moment of clarity, Betsy DeVos attempted to push back against an EO that removed protections for transgender students. Sessions and Trump basically told her to shut up if she wanted to keep her job.
We’ve seen how Trump deals with confrontation. He gets very uncomfortable and then walks away ending the conversation. He acts much tougher when there is no-one standing there ready to punch him in the mouth. The guy is as a cowardly whiny little bitch.
There was a very telling interview yesterday on PRI’s show The World, with a reporter from The Economist who was in the Oval Office for a while, interviewing 45 on his economic policy. During this radio interview, this reporter (David Rennie) talked about his impressions of how things work in the Oval Office.
He started out with this:
[QUOTE=David Rennie]
It’s kind of like being in a royal palace several hundred years ago, with people coming in and out, trying to catch the ear of the king. That’s the feel at the Trump Oval Office. He likes to be surrounded by his courtiers.
[/QUOTE]
He goes on from there (the whole clip is 6:50 long, if you don’t want to listen to the whole thing, start at 3:43) to describe how 45 apparently likes to be surrounded by yes-men. One example: when he said that China had been a currency manipulator until after Trump took office (which is not true, they turned that policy around over 2 years before) and Mnuchin piped up, unasked, to say “Yes, they changed the day you took office.” Again, not only untrue but clearly sucking up to and yes-manning for the President.
Full disclosure: The Economist clearly has no liking for 45, the article they published based on their time with him was pretty scathing. So this may not be an entirely objective account. It is presented here as another data point, for what it is worth.
As to why a cabinet member would behave this way, I think the probable reasons have been pretty well covered, and fall under the category of perceived self interest (not necessarily the same as actual self interest) with a short term benefit fixation.
He seems to try to dominate some-what well respected people… and then collects them like trophies. Those are the people he appoints & keeps around him.
They are not completely yes-men if only because some of them are women.