Trump is learning how to adjust his cabinet to fit his basic anti-democratic, racist and unhinged impulses. All of his apologists should now, but will eventually, hang their heads in shame.
32
OMG, Trump blatantly lied his way into power, but sadly that's not punishable nor would it have him fired like any CEO getting the job based on falsehoods. So what stands between him, a unimaginably stupid egotist, and actual governance? Its everyone else around him. I'm not American, but I can say your country is regarded as a laughing stock now by pretty much everyone, and it's cause is just one very poor human being: Donald Trump. Very sad. I can only hope Meuller #lockshimup now that would be poetic.
29
Is this an editorial from the Onion?
63
Characterizing Trump’s ignorant and idiotic intransigence as a “great virtue” is putting more lipstick on this pig than any other has ever worn.
38
So in other words we are at the mercy of the dumbest people in this country. Really stupid people who never understood or bothered to learn about our history, our institutions, our laws and constitution. People who don't care about honesty or facts. This author has to be one of the most ignorant people to get published in a while. The cabinet does not exist to serve the pleasure of one man, even the president. They exist for the same reasons every branch in our government exists TO SERVE THIS COUNTRY AND ALL THE PEOPLE IN IT. The cabinet and the agencies they represent exist to serve the best interests of this country and part of that job is acting as a check against any other branch that may be doing things that harm this country's interests. Trump is not a king. Russia tapped into the Facebook feed of people too lazy to read a legitimate news article about the issues or to make Trump explain how he was going to accomplish his bullshit. It didn't help that we had a news media all too eager to publish every rumor or scandal instead of holding Trump accountable for his lies.
Worse this author assumes that because there is no great outcry in Trump country then all his supporters must be happy with what Trump is doing. Well there may be a minority that really do but I live and work around a lot of Trump supporters and trust me they just don't pay attention to what he's doing or what's going on.
44
This is a slickly written excuse piece for a dangerous and foolish demagogue who was "chosen" by a broken political system that aggressively does NOT reflect the will of the people. There is enormous damage to our country and to the world being perpetrated by a man and his cronies who neither value the truth nor the true good of anyone other than themselves. If you can write this (or read it and agree) and sleep at night I have profound pity for you.
39
Confucius say, if you want honest government, hire honest administrators.
Don't hire sycophants, toadies, and yes men who are just going to cocoon you in your own self-delusion.
21
I wonder if this McCarthy is related to Joe McCarthy because he sure sounds like him.
25
"His great virtue is that he cannot . . ." That is the first time I have ever seen the word "virtue" attached to Donald Trump. Congratulations! Newspeak has triumphed! You win a prize!
19
and if he said jump off a bridge you would becuase it's his vision?
13
I could not disagree more.
This presidency is a sham!This entire administration isn't worthy of a Mel Brooks satire. The presidency under the corrupt trump is nothing but a means of furthering his business interests and fulfilling the draconian agenda of his rabid and racist supporters.
He bankrupted businesses when he ignored the advice of expert executives that he hired for their knowledge who he then disagreed with and proceeded to plow ahead ,ruining the enterprise . Case in point is the failed trump Airline.
There is nothing short of a criminal indictment to put this misery to an end.
20
Hmm...fascinating. Mr. Mccarthy seems blissfully unaware that Mr. Trump is:
- Ignorant;
- Lazy;
- Of below average intelligence; and
- Psychologically unwell.
24
I think that might be the single most depressing thing I've ever read. A minority of ill-informed voters elected a greedy, small-minded fraud and it's somehow the patriotic duty of the rest of the nation to help steer the ship into the iceberg. Shall we also stand on the deck and sing hymns as we slide into the water?
This isn't Kansas or Louisiana. This is the entire nation and, potentially, the entire world. The evangelicals might be willing to give this ignorant buffoon a "mulligan", but I really don't have the room in my budget for that.
157
Hogwash.
43 per cent turnover in senior executive ranks within 15 months would be a disaster for ANY organization. And when you consider that DJT picked all these people himself to begin with you really have a testimonial to his ineptitude.
28
This op ed is so dumb. The "logic" seems to be that our traditional leaders have done a lousy job (no argument from me), therefore a new leader who charts a new course must be an improvement. But the truth is that we have fallen from the frying pan into the fire.
15
Mr. McCarthy- are you trying to be provocative or are you really that much of a fool? The behavior of the vile man in the White House is unprecedented and cannot be normalized. Each day I wake up and think that it can't sink any lower- each day I am proven wrong.
26
Trump is the one with a "distorted view of government". He's the executive producer and star of the most important TV show on earth, in his mind. And doing everything for ratings. How you, or anyone, can say he doesn't need help, would be laughable if it wasn't so misguidedly tragic. The man is a serial liar, willfully incurious, a bully, a misogynist, an adulterer time and time again (tip of iceberg there), and thinks there are some "good" white supremacists out there. I think this student of Roy Cohn hasn't shown his most dark and evil side yet. What we've seen so far is sickening and terrifying.
10
Take off your rose-colored glasses, Mr. McCarthy. Donald Trump is the worst president in the history of the United States, and if you were less partisan, perhaps you would not be constructing elaborate rationalizations such as this to defend his outrageously immoral and incompetent tenure. He cannot govern with or without these people. He cannot govern at all. The only acceptable response to Trump is outrage and resistance.
22
Just gimme some truth. Not a lawyer's brief for a guilty client. Would Mr. McCarthy hold the same opinion if a Democratic president possessed Trump's ignorant, narcissistic, impulsive, sadistic personality? The writer, like so many Trump apologists, uses sophistry to disguise a lack of core principles.
16
Mr. McCarthy, are you insane? You characterize 45 as "cautious"?? Are you wholly delusional? Measured, circumspect, "cautious" are not words in 45's small vocabulary; erratic, unpredictable, manipulative, shrewd are the defining terms that this president understands and embraces. The notions of ethical behavior, fiscal prudence (except as applying to the poor and ill), and transparency are utterly lacking in this administration. Just look at the shenanigans of: Pruitt, Zinke, Price, Carson, Mnunchin, and Schulkin--they learn the absence of limits from their leader. He who goes to his own golf properties and whose family are making free-wheeling deals on the side while "serving" our country show that there is no propriety and there are no boundaries.
Whatever happened to the idea of a "team of rivals"? It showed Lincoln's inherent strength that he could tolerate divided opinions in his cabinet; 45's incapacity to tolerate anything other than complete submission to his whims shows his overarching weakness and insecurity. But, oh, yes, according to Orrin Hatch, 45 is the best president ever!--better than Washington and Lincoln, as trumpeted by our reigning fool. It leaves me feeling ill, angry, and frustrated.
Your opinion contributed nothing to our national discourse and merely feeds the White House's appetites. You were most correct when you cited Groucho Marx; it is the perfect description of 45's principles, not his rotating cabinet picks.
17
All that needs to be said about this ridiculous 'opinion piece' has been said except that McCarthy is nothing more than a political hack and a cancer on our democracy.
15
You are kidding, right? Or blind perhaps? And deaf? Unless you like brutus ignoramuses too full of themselves to be of any use in a democracy.
8
Follow this thinking and Elizabeth would today be Queen of the American Colonies.
6
What is described here in glowing verbiage is a monarchy, not a monolith. The writer is being disingenuous.
5
Wow. How outrageous that our president’s best quality is his willful ignorance.
I can only hope that the rest of our democratic institutions resist the disease that is DJT.
12
Send him back to from whence he came. Milan This time make sure he does not slither away. Also surround him with Crosses. Just dangling him by his ankles was obviously not enough.
Just a little bit of typical Trumpy malevolent humor of Oh he was just joking. Such evil definitely has to be controlled.
1
One of the dangers we face, is people like McCarthy who try to normalize this thing that wormed it's way into the white house. Most normal people realize the shortcomings of this imbecile who somehow managed, with the support of the deplorables, and the Russian govt. to claim the presidency.
The horrors this man could impose on this nation are countless. Many, like myself were well aware of this man before he reached this office. We knew he was cruel, ignorant, stubborn, vindictive, and mentally unbalanced.
To take a person like this and make him leader of this country is a cruel joke played upon the citizens of this country. He governs with a viciousness, never exhibited to this degree by any previous president. He assumes that he knows everything about everything, and cannot take constructive criticism when it differs from his own viewpoints, or interferes with his plans for personal gain.He flounders from one situation to another.
Look at what he and his sycophant followers have already done to this nation.
This beast does not need to be controlled. He needs to be removed. The founders of this nation were well aware that a situation like this may arise, which is why they aded the 25th amendment. To bad they didn't also take into account a spineless congress not willing to go that route when the situation arose.
8
Mr. McCarthy, it's hard to know if you're being serious in this simplistic opinion. I have to assume you're addressing the NYTimes readers with a straight face when you write that a "majority of voters in a majority of states" selected Mr. Trump, and therefore, those voters supported his economic nationalism, etc. etc. In point of fact, most voters across America did not select Mr. Trump, but rather selected Ms. Clinton by nearly three million votes. On top of that is the more damning proposition that Mr. Trump either actively or passively worked with Russia to tip the election in his favour. So it's not exactly the "liberals" who are second guessing the President here.
To somehow "forget" that Mr. Trump came to power under such extraordinary circumstances--particularly as you pontificate in such a high-minded way about the Presidential office--is to be both ahistorical and dangerously naive.
7
Trump lost the election by 3 million votes. The majority did not vote for him.
He is a dangerous racist. He does not read, and has not read for the past 70 years. He knows nothing about economics, diplomacy, law, equal rights, human empathy or any of the other basic subjects that every president must know.
He is surrounding himself with ignorance, incompetence and talk-show hosts. He is a liar with no understanding of the truth.
He will be indicted. His conduct and law-breaking will cause the Supreme Court to issue orders against him.
Donald Trump is a disgrace. It will take years to repair the damage he is doing. Your statement that he resists learning says it all.
6
What an inane article. The Constitution was designed to restrict idiot Presidents from running roughshod over the country. The President's responsibility is not to appoint yes-people as advisors and cabinet secretaries, but to appoint experienced, qualified people who can augment his/her ideas through careful analysis. We do not elect kings because eventually we would get the equivalent of Ivan the Terrible, who, fortunately for the US, was much worse than our current "king wanna be".
4
Trump the statesman, putting nation before party, party before self. Nope.
Trump the leader, bringing together the best minds to help solve difficult problems. Nope.
Trump the example, a humble and honest public servant. Nope.
Trump the big bag of Nope.
9
Umm, actually, Hilary got 3 million plus more votes than Trump. MOST people did not vote for him. Between sexism, Russian propaganda, lying and the obsolete electoral system, he lucked his way in. Even if his policies were actually good for the country, he is a reprehensible example of decency. It's not funny when he jokes about lying to a head of state. I don't understand why people laugh at such things. His behavior is absolutely deplorable, in terms of his bullying, lying, lavish spending of our hard earned tax dollars.
7
McCarthy must have believed the line “I alone can do it.”
No POTUS can run the US Government as a mom and pop one owner operation.
Dopey Donald runs his life and his companies that way, and they are always in chaos.
Maybe McCarthy should study how the really great Presidents (Washington, Lincoln, both Roosevelts) ran their administrations before he gives such foolish advice.
5
Replacing toadies with abject toadies doesn't sound like progress, more like circling the wagons. With the Mueller juggernaut heading Trump's way, expect all manner of shennanigans to come, a real stress test for democracy.
4
The only nice thing I can say about this opinion piece is kudos to NYT for running it. Like any concerned citizen, I need to be aware of opposing views.
But if the author expresses the common sentiment of your average Trump supporter, there is no hope for them. Any rational person would see the demagogue that Trump is. The man is a complete disgrace, and surrounds himself with others of his ilk. November 2018 can't come soon enough.
6
Translation:
Trump cannot assemble a team until he sees who is sufficiently sycophantic, a fact not totally available until he sees them in action.
The fact that the people still standing are the laughable Sarah Sanders, Kellyanne, Ben Carson, Betsy DeVos, Scott Pruitt, et al, while others swirl the toilet and a few are pleading guilty to various things is not a sign of Trump's "genius" but the opposite.
5
Trump was, regrettably, elected by the fictitious electoral college to administer the laws of the nation, not to govern!
3
OMG! So ... " His great virtue is that he cannot be molded by his advisers; he resists all tutelage." And, the author of this chillingly odd piece should be reminded that, in his self-absorbed incuriosity, Trump apparently can't be molded by anything beyond his staggeringly needy ego. He can't even be bothered to learn basic facts such as (just for one) the actual trade statistics between the US and Canada. And he is quite apparently not open to - is even antagonistic toward - the tutelage of those who would prepare or correct him. All of which and so much more is conveniently forgiven by conservative ideology like Daniel McCarthy - their main objective being how they can insinuate themselves into the dysfunctional mess they defend, gain a foothold and pull up their own pet theories and objectives.
3
I am pretty sure either I misread his quote buried in the article or it is factually wrong. I think he lost the so-called popular vote yet was elected because of Electoral College votes n
“... Two years ago, majorities of voters in a majority of states chose to put Donald Trump in the White House.”
5
It's not about "dislike of Mr Trump". It is that Mr Trump obviously, manifestly, is unsuited to the high office he holds. More specifically, he is a very nasty, petulant, impulsive toddler-man.
But you need eyes to see that, and Mr McCarthy is blind. Of course he is: he is part of the true believer religious set. No amount of reason and daylight will make him see what constitutionally he simply will not see -- a constitutional refusal to see.
This reasonable sounding line from McCarthy, which presupposes Trump is reasonable, is utterly off point:
"Cabinet members and executive-branch officials are not supposed to be a check on the president; they serve at his pleasure, after all."
It is a feature of many "intellectual" supporters of wrong and/or crazy things to sound measured and reasonable while defending the indefensible. McCarthy is a beautiful example. He and people like him will always be unenlightened. Being constitutionally benighted is a kind of mental illness that afflicts so many it puts democracy in peril. We need mechanisms to contain this blight on the country.
5
"He was elected because the people who do the molding in our politics have for too long led our country down a path of destruction, under Republicans and Democrats alike."
Path of destruction? Well, Bush 43 wasn't so great, but Clinton and Obama's terms were not so bad. How far do you want to turn back the clock--to the good old 1950s, when women stayed at home and non-whites knew their proper place?
3
I confess I stopped reading shortly after the statement that Trump won the election with a "majority of the votes in a majority of the states". That is as intellectually dishonest a statement as I've seen outside of the White House in quite a while. I would add that, yes, it is the job of the Cabinet to attempt to check the President when he is as ignorant, impulsive, dishonest, venal, divisive and mean-spirited as this one. This is a unique situation.
3
Wow. So as this great republic nears a crisis of democratic rule, our duty as citizens is to refrain from critique and comment while a demonstrably corrupt, nepotistic, and possibly treasonous chief executive surrounds himself with toadies and sycophants? Worried sick about our country while this band of incompetent, self serving grotesques destroys our credibility while taking a wrecking ball to institutions that safeguard it, we trust that Robert Mueller's investigation will prove these institutions resilient. Otherwise,we may go the way of a Roman republic and fall into the tyranny of an autocratic president backed up by an oligarchic economy. Doesn't that bother a conservative pundit?
3
Mr McCarthy seems to have conveniently forgotten that Trump was not elected by a majority of the citizens of this country. Quite the opposite, in fact, an inconvenient truth that blows the entire premise of this piece out of the water.
It seems to me that a situation like the present one, in which the president was installed by the electoral college overriding the will of the people (all perfectly legal under our current system, yes, but that is precisely what has happened), absolutely calls for a cabinet that will keep such a chief executive in check and prevent him from defying the will of the people on major issues (starting a nuclear war would certainly qualify as such.)
I despise the echo chamber of social media, and am always happy to read well-reasoned opinion pieces from those whose political views I vehemently disagree with. In fact, I wish the Times would publish more of those. Mr. McCarthy’s transparent attempt to curry favor with Mr. Trump is, however, not one of those, and I am left wondering why the editors are wasting our time with this garbage.
1
The only thing I could agree with in this article was "the new administration’s first 15 months should be marked by rapid cycling", because it played out like the worst ravages of bipolar disorder writ large.
3
Ha ha! Nice try. Why did he associate himself with the Republican brand then?
If you are right, he was doing his usual job of conning people, namely all of those Republicans who voted for him thinking he would be contained. And to hear them tell it at the time, they were legion.
2
Yes, the one word that typifies the President is 'cautious'!? I fell across that word describing Mr. Trump in this piece and immediately began to wonder where the author had been sleeping so peacefully over the past year.
3
"A majority of voters from a majority of states" is such a predictable excuse for this horrible president. Face it, the man lost the popular vote by about 3 million voters, and if the vote occurred today he would be run completely "out of Dodge". He won the electoral college by "bottom feeding" his campaign to the lowest common denominator of the populace. More importantly, he was never elected by those people to govern at all. His mandate was to maliciously tear and dismantle everything up, which he is obviously attempting to do.
Obfuscation, in articles like this, are painful to read and try to absorb. However I do read them studiously, usually with the same nauseating results.
4
Perhaps Mr. McCarthy should be reminded the 265 million Americans DID NOT vote for Trump. Deplorable undemocratic thinking.
1
This essay is irresponsible and wrong in every respect, as is the Times' decision to publish it. The premise of this essay is that Trump is simply a president with which some might disagree. He's not. He is unqualified, unprepared, and dangerously irresponsible. Putting aside his racism and ineffectiveness, he has failed to defend the nation when it is under attack from foreign enemies (see Russia) and when its citizens are under attack from enemies within (see Charlottesville). The voters made a mistake. Many of us knew that hen. There is no excuse for denying it now. Our country is at stake.
4
45 is President, not CEO, not dictator (not yet anyway) and not king. Any he fires and/or mocks anybody who tries to explain the difference to him.
3
But Trump just said himself he loves conflicts and arguments in his staff ...
2
"His great virtue is that he cannot be molded by his advisers; he resists all tutelage." This apologizes for DJT's astonishing ignorance on a great part of his job. Outlandish.
3
You have to actually know how to govern and trump is completely clueless. What he is good at is sowing fear and chaos and destruction. He lies and insults America's closest allies while he encourages the dictators to keep their police state and restrict human rights and human freedoms around the world.
He only wants adulation and applause and abject loyalty from his cabinet so again how is this governing?
1
I was absolutely incredulous when the author was foolish enough to quote Groucho Marx: "These are my principles. If you don't like them I have others." The sentiment perfectly embodies Trump's "principles".
3
That Mr. McCarthy is a conservative is astonishing, given that he sounds just like a radical Jacobin-style revolutionary giddy at the prospect of blowing up everything smacking of the ancién regime. His argument in this column rests on the idiotic assumption that nothing lies between policy elites governing and manipulating a president and the the frightening and continual thrashing around that characterizes President Trump.
Given Mr. McCarthy's argument, he must be very pleased to see today's announcement that Ivanka Trump will be stepping in for Rex Tillerson and meeting with the South Korean minister in his stead. She's a living (if grotesque) example of the destruction of the "policy elite" in foreign policy.
Aren't we all happy now?
2
In January 2017 Trump proclaimed "We have a lot of smart people. I tell you what. One thing we’ve learned. We have, by far, the highest IQ of any cabinet ever...” That from the same man who fake newsed his IQ at an astounding 156. So what are all these ultra smart and ex-smart people supposed to do? Watch Jeopardy on TV? Trump's incapable of absorbing anything but the most simplistic PowerPoint briefing. So I guess in that context why bother to even have a cabinet at all? Just let Trump watch Fox News all day.
3
Um, sure, but the essay is based on the assumption that the president is not an narcissistic dotard, withe the mental capacity to learn, understand and react with reason. None of that is true here.
2
It doesn't seem to me that rust belt voters choese Trump to "demolish the mystique of the policy elite", rather they hoped he would keep his promises to bring them a better quality of life - better jobs and so on. The fact that he is welshing on most of this, at least so far, and that many of his cabinet picks seem charged with deregulating the mission of whatever agency they head, doesn't seem to matter to this columnist. Puffery here.
5
“voters in a majority of states chose to put Donald Trump in the White House not despite but largely because of the fact that he was an economic nationalist and campaigned on a foreign policy that would be neither as fecklessly grandiose as Mr. Bush’s nor as hemmed in by humanitarian concerns as Barack Obama’s.”
There is an unsupportable assertion. There are many suggestions why Trump got to be President: incitement of racism, Russian manipulation, unrest with the status quo, a vain attempt to restore hope for the middle class. Trump’s “economic policy” and “foreign policy” are imaginings, not motivating factors.
3
Still laughing. That could have been written by Monty Python.
6
This man is not fit to be a world leader.
Domestically, he deliberately separates children form their mothers - hysterically screaming children - cruelly separated so that he hopes their example will prevent people who are in fear of their lives from fleeing to the United States. If you support Trump - have you ever had or have a six year old. Imagine how much you love that child and how much that child depends on you - and a cruel vicious man decides to move that child to an institution on the other side of the USA. There is no disgust that I can envision that adequately covers this level of behaviour.
We are citizens of the world. We all know that we cannot have a nuclear war. If we do, You will die. I will die. Our children will die. All our loved ones will die. A profoundly ignorant man believes that he can start a "limited" nuclear war in direct contravention of all human decency and actually live to see victory. It is hard to understand whether the the greater stretch of credulity is that a man could end the world based on profound ignorance or that he can surround himself with people who support that mortality.
The United States is no longer the Golden City on the Hill. It is a source of ignorance, cruelty, lack of human civility and evil. This man, his enablers in the cabinet, his supporters in the press and many of those who voted for him are endangering the future of civilised society.
4
Clearly the author is too young to remember a stupendously drunk bellicose irrational Nixon - an individual so off the rails that Arthur Schlesinger, in perhaps the most superb enlightened act of treason forbade anything to come out of the Oval Office without his approval. Thank goodness for people who have the nation's interest at heart - and who aren't the President.
3
Sorry, NYT and Mr. Op-Ed Writer, but Trump was elected pretty much because (a) Hillary Clinton was a terrible candidate and (b) the media thought he was so outrageous they gave him free publicity and reported everything he said uncritically. (That approach might work as "journalism" in basic Communist dictatorships where the people know not to believe the Party line, but that's not the way it's supposed to work here.)
His election does NOT constitute a mandate that he do whatever pops into his head i.e. whatever the last person he saw who "looked the part" suggested.
Although it is sadly true that an impetuous ignoramus was elected president, we do not need to accept him as a dictator whose personal whims must go unquestioned.
He was most certainly NOT elected to govern on his own.
2
Really? You’re playing the “If the shoe was on the other foot” card with this President? Do you seriously want to down that road? Because if 90% of what this President has done had been done by Obama, or any other President for that matter, they would have been impeached long ago.
2
Wow....McCarthy is way off. "He was elected because the people who do the molding in our politics have for too long led our country down a path of destruction, under Republicans and Democrats alike."
Really? I have never felt our democracy is being threatened more then I do since Trump's election. If anything, this guy needs a shorter leash!
3
This is an ill thought column, obviously by a Trump supporter. Are you saying if we have a mad man as the leader his advisors should simply carry his policies because he was elected ? That is a prescription for anarchy. Working at the pleasure of President cliche has been overblown. You work for the nation. When you see the nation is in peril you challenge the person who is bringing the nation is in peril. You don’t fold.
4
I’m going to take a lesson from the Parkland students on this one: I’m not wasting my time disputing nonsensical, red herring arguments.
6
Mr. McCarthy should have his pencil taken away. He, with his skewed view of Donald Trump, is tantamount to enabling an arsonist with access to a supply of gasoline and a box of matches.
4
ha! policy trial and error. yeah, THAT'S what's going on.
1
I don't really care who Trump hires and fires as long as he stands trial for obstructing justice, money laundering, colluding with a hostile foreign power, lying to government officials and treason, Mr. McCarthy.
3
The author of the article seems to discount the fact that our president is unable to maintain a single thought or course of action for more than thirty seconds. If I were on a boat he was captaining, I'd double up on life vests.
2
The people didn't choose this leader. They chose Hillary Clinton.
5
So, to sum up this opinion piece in a few words, Don't worry, be happy? Sorry, that's not going to work for anyone who cares for a nation that was know as the leader of the free world.
2
I think the scariest four words in this opinion piece are "he resists all tutelage." How is this a virtue?? It's clear this president knows little to nothing of American or world history. I doubt he could pass the naturalization test to become a U.S. citizen. But oh yes, let's trust his gut.
88
IF, and I mean a big IF, he were as competent as George W Bush, I would say the author is correct. But this man has proven to be nothing more than a fox and friends clown. Just look at the mess he's made out of the Florida school shootings. What advice did he get for handling that situation? What advice did he get when he told a bunch of police officers "its okay to bump their head as you put them in the squad car!" The man has proven to be nothing but a big mouth. Most "Good" leaders who have little or no experience handling new jobs surround themselves with good people and then LISTENS TO THEM!! His actions should be based on good advice--advice we pay him to take!!! Much like military commanders. Otherwise, what are our taxpayers money paying them for. TRUMP IS NOT, AND WILL NOT BE A DICTATOR. LIKE IT OR NOT, TRUMP WORKS FOR "WE THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES" And if you think I'm joking, wait until 2020 when We the People vote him out of office!
2
Well, this is one of the craziest arguments I’ve read in a long time.
The key danger posed by Donald Trump is not that this volatile president will be hobbled by a few sensible aides, who are better informed than he is, thereby setting a precedent that might hogtie future president who happen to be less daring.
The danger is that boastful, infantile, heartless, instinctively dictatorial, lazy, vindictive, resentful Donald Trump — a man in a million, an anomaly — will wreck the lives of many many Americans and people around the world.
4
All one has to do is a quick bit of research about the author of this piece. Just another reactionary. Unfortunately, what used to pass as conservatism is full of them these days. It is interesting how he chooses to try and spin the clear loss of the popular vote into some sort of majority. That should make it clear that this is one reactionary grifter making excuses for another reactionary grifter.
2
What a cogent argument for dictatorship. Absolutely horrifying.
3
I haven't laughed this hard in a while. Thanks, Dan.
4
The "duty" of Trump staff and cabinet members is to maintain unswerving loyalty to Dear Leader while they funnel taxpayer money into their bank accounts.
2
Thank you, Mr. McCarthy, for letting us kniw,why the Titanic will never sink.
3
And you call Bush fecklessly grandiose, while Trump sits in the white house hungrily contemplating whom to invade first. Iran, N. Korea, Venezuela, or let's see maybe Lebanon. After all, he's at the helm of the most powerful military in the world, and it hasn't been used since Iraq and Libya. What's holding us back?
I pray the deep-seated anti-violence of the American people, especially the women, will stop him before we strike again.
3
Management 101: Hire people smarter than yourself and listen to them.
Or not.
1
Because when my auto mechanic says I need oil, I fire her for a mechanic more attuned to my anti-maintenance rules, and too bad for my passengers if I'm wrong and we seize up in Death Valley!
2
Why have a cabinet if they are meant to be lackeys? The whole point is that cabinet members help mold the President’s thinking. The Donald seems to understood this when he says that he likes the chaos of conflict. The problem is that by appointing friends, business associates and family to his inner circle and cabinet he has limited the scope of the discussion to bad decision and worse decision. Even then, when questioned because of their well-founded misgivings and personal anxiety about the direction of our country, he manages to make the worst decisions possible seemingly just to assert his authority.
1
Articles of this kind of deranged, cult-of-personality thinking get you a dictator. Sadly, this is where we are with Trump; a wanna be dictator who stumbles and bumbles onto the scene because the Republican Party lost control of its gatekeeper function. The Republican Party is little more now than an authoritarian cult, whose current cult leader is - Trump.
4
"He can govern, and we can live," maybe until the ICBM's start to fly.
I agree. He should be put in a jail cell with no widows, no cell phone, no twitter, no visit.
1
“...he resists all tutelage.” How is this trait conducive to informed, compassionate governing? This president is profoundly, proudly ignorant. There is nothing admirable about his combative, chaotic approach to his office, or indeed about the man himself. I fervently hope history will show that this travesty of an administration was an aberration. And I hope we never see his like again.
2
"our politics have for too long led our country down a path of destruction, under Republicans and Democrats alike."
This is a croc of unconservative, nihilistic, reactionary garbage, not rational analysis. Our nation has not been led down a path of destruction, previous to Trump that is. This is the entire basis of the faux-outrage among Trump supporters, and it is a fatalistic fantasy. Our nation was in great shape prior to Nov. 2016, with some problems, but doing much better than many others. Only for that reason do the trumpistas have so much they can tear down in their blind and hateful ignorance.
1
What this op/ed shows is how easily partisanship can lead to a dangerously distorted view of a president wholly unfit for office. You have not been paying attention, Mr. McCarthy, if you think Trump has some carefully considered policy platform that other people are blocking him from implementing.
This president is determined on his course? Since when? He changes his mind more often than most people change their underwear, and do you know why? Because he has no clue what he's doing and no interest in finding out. I agree that he resists all tutelage, but how stupid to try to spin that as a virtue.
2
Someone's been augmenting their sugary breakfast cereal with a little too much Ayn Rand and other comic book writers....
1
A majority of those who voted in the 2016 presidential election did not choose Trump.
And had the electors done their job to protect our nation from a crackpot becoming president, as envisioned by the Founding Fathers, he would not be sitting in the Oval Office today.
1
Is this article no more than another expression of dogma, confusing cause and effect ? Dogma: Trump is Republican, therefore he must be right. Accordingly, his revolving door treatment of his advisors (cabinet) like the way the Knicks ownership treats its coaches and players, must be good - let me find an argument for that, no matter how far-fetched.
1
Perhaps this is Daniel McCarthy’s way of asking Mr. Trump for a job. Maybe he has his eyes on press secretary. Sarah Sanders is pretty much an old-timer at 8 months on the job.
1
Disagree with McCarthy. Advisers are there to provide "advice", and are in their positions (supposedly) because of their expertise in that area. The Trump administration in its first 15 months is most noteworthy for installing advisers with no expertise. Why does he bother with advisers at all?
If any President in modern history needs good advisers, it's Trump. The man doesn't read history or really care about policy, watches Fox News for his worldview. What could go wrong?
Please NY Times, I'm not opposed to your presenting conservative opinion. I do ask that they at least be intelligent opinions.
Does McCarthy not understand the word chaos? The turmoil in the Trump presidency does not come from people resigning because they disagree with him or refuse to carry out his will. It comes from day one, the firing of Flynn, the result of a man too ignorant to pick good or even venal people able enough to serve a great nation. The cabinet is not meant to be a cabal of cronies, but women and men capable of leading large and critical government bureaucracies. They in turn need to work with a civil service of experience, knowledge, and capability to manage sub agencies. The U.S. government is the biggest and most complex organization in the world, not some family run, single focused branding company with a celebrity front man. Trump is mismanaging our government. He is as all predicted not presidential material.
1
The cabinet members do serve at the pleasure of the sitting president, however, their first duty is to the country. The oath of office does not contain a loyalty clause in relation to the president. If there is a conflict between the president's wants and desires or policy enactment it is the duty of those cabinet members to act in the best interest of the country, not to the president should that president act contrary to the needs of the country.
As we have seen in the past months (when Trump is not golfing) is a "me first" attitude in Trump's actions, and tweets. What has this president accomplished that benefits the nation as a whole, and the con job tax reform act does not count. What has the cabinet members accomplished that benefits the country as a whole. For both the cabinet and President, they have accomplished little of any consequence.
We have an authoritarian, a person who acts for himself rather than country and he is assembling a gaggle of courtiers who will never state the emperor has no clothes, and in some cases, as dimwitted as Trump appears to be.
Now given that we have an unhinged grifter as president, who in their right mind would go to work in the toxic environment the "president" has created?
I believe I answered my own question.
1
Trump wasn’t elected to govern. He wasn’t elected. Voters decisively rejected him in 2016 by a margin of almost 3 million votes, and absent Comey’s meddling and Russian espionage he would also have lost the electoral vote.
Trump had no mandate to govern and his transient whims on all issues (other than slavish devotion to Putin, grifting, racism, and protectionism) show he has no clue on his “presidency”.
5
Holy cow.
"A majority of voters in a majority of states." You have to get pretty convoluted to bypass that a majority of voters voted against Trump, and his total voting percentage of Americans was about 26%. A majority indeed.
And Trump's "great virtue is that he cannot be molded by advisors..." Yessss, indeedy, we are lucky to have a leader who is ignorant of much, uninterested in more, and unwilling to be advised. That is the role of a great leader: lead from ignorance, listen to none.
So in net, a President for whom the vast majority of Americans did not vote, has the right to not listen to people who know what they are talking about simply because a minority of carefully placed citizens, in a one acre one vote election, decided to shake things up.
That is indeed a recipe for success. Thank you Daniel McCarthy, of "Modern Age: A Conservative Review" for a peek under the hood of what currently stands for conservative intellectualism. Take another roll in the grave, Mr. Buckley. The fun has only just started.
4
This is right, comrade McCarthy! The cabinet must support the President's intuitions, which are always right (as Peter Navarro says). Our Dear Leader does not need anyone else's ideas to disturb his genius. The Cabinet is there only to implement his thoughts. If they have any of their own ideas and can't keep them to themselves, they must be purged.
8
The author, McCarthy, is not in his right mind. Donald Trump was elected by the Elector College, but Hillary Clinton won the popular vote by 3 million votes. Trump was known for his TV show. Few of the 62.3 million who voted for him knew anything else about the guy. The fact is, Trump is one of the worst business people in America, today. It was well known he couldn't do a deal to save his life and everything he touched went bankrupt. People voted for his TV personality from the fictional show The Apprentice. The real Trump is a lunatic, a sociopath and a malignant Narcissist. Now that he is in the White House, Trump needs 24 hour care and surveillance to protect the American people from his delusional actions.
5
A lot of words and false equivalencies, but no real point. What do you want, for people to stop criticizing behavior and ideas that they believe are detrimental to the country? If so, why do you go on to do the same about Trump's axed picks?
You write, "Mr. Tillerson a was a gamble from the beginning, a secretary of state with as little political experience as the president and no very tight ties to him. Mr. Tillerson’s tenure at the State Department has been considered a success by no one."
(NYT, please also note the typo - I'm getting tired of them. If you won't hire people to check for them, please let us flag them for you.)
1
This is pure nonsense. Mr. McCarthy expects us to afford Donald Trump a pass on the past sixteen months because he picked advisers who cramped his style. Mr. Trump couldn't have said any better himself.
Well, buckle up everybody because it sure looks like "Donald Trump's wildest impulses will soon be unchecked."
5
Correct he does not need to be controlled, he needs to be removed.
5
"His great virtue is that he cannot be molded by his advisers; he resists all tutelage."
Resisting all tutelage is a virtue? Please let SecEd Betsy DeVos know your sentiments on this, Mr. McCarthy. She might find your educational philosophy useful.
For Americans who value knowledge, critical thinking, insightful context, and the ability to discern facts from hype and flattery, DT's resisting all tutelage is his - and our - greatest liability.
8
If Trump isn't controlled, there is a high likelihood we will all be dead before we will have had a chance to boot him out in 2020.
3
McCarthy is right in one particular respect: the fish rots from the head.
4
Wow, is this satire? Because it’s really good satire. Well-played, sir.
4
I would hazard a guess that Mr. McCarthy is a big fan of Vlad the Poisoner (Putin)?
3
Applying the words "leader" and "captain" to the impulsive and dangerous man-child actively compromising America's safety, stability and reputation is a significant semantic error on the author's part.
2
This argument might make sense if the president had any idea what he is doing. But he openly eschews any kind of expertise or advice, so to have only yes-men surrounding him will greatly damage the country.
All presidents rely on advice, and the best ones weigh different advice from a wide variety of viewpoints. Governments in which everyone is afraid to criticize the leader in case they get fired lead to dictatorships and misguided policy adventures, like that of Nazi Germany, Robert Mugabe's disastrous Zimbabwe, and Russia's kleptocratic economic tailspin under Putin. Those governments of dutiful, bowing yes-men are not ones to emulate.
1
All of what you said might be true if the president weren't insane.
3
Good thing the name placards are made of paper.
1
The following from Mr. McCarthy's shallow and partisan article is one of the most hyperbolic generalizations I have ever read in the NY Times. Presenting diverse opinions is one thing, having this kind of nonsense share space in such a reputable newspaper is quite another. Shame on Mr. McCarthy for writing it, shame on the Times for giving it the light of day:"He was elected because the people who do the molding in our politics have for too long led our country down a path of destruction, under Republicans and Democrats alike. The advice they give, sound in theory, is terrible in practice. One service President Trump has performed that even many of his detractors should applaud is to demolish the mystique of the policy elite. He can govern, and we can live, without them."
1
While I understand that the Times need to give equal time to conservative thinkers, that doesn't mean they have to give equal time to idiocy. We can argue about how Trump got elected but now that he is the President, he should avail himself with experts--honest ones--rather than the carnival of ill prepared grifters that we've seen passing through this administration.
Fake news from Russian trolls is a problem but alternative facts from conservative pundits is equally disturbing and shouldn't be promoted by the Times. Your readers deserve better.
3
Oh my. "All oars pulling in the direction set by the captain"? That's a real trick, when the captain sets a new direction on a moment's notice, without telling anyone, then changes it up again when the next whim hits. North Korea. Dreamers. Guns. Many more.
"Something like a coherent result"? That don't work too good, when the inside of the president's head is incoherent.
"Resists all tutelage"? How is that a good thing? The president has a wide brief, to say the least. No modern president could possibly know everything needed to govern. Don't know, won't listen, can't learn is not a formula for success in any job, much less this one. Mule-headed refusal to listen to American advisors leaves the guy wide open to persuasion by others, who might not be totally dedicated to the best interests of the USA, y'know? Besides, he absolutely laps up one kind of tutelage: whatever the hysterical, angry, talking heads on cable TV tell him, must be true and must be acted on.
Wow. What a silly op/ed. All thanks to the NYT for printing it and giving us a nice Friday giggle. Can't hardly make this stuff up.
2
"Two years ago, majorities of voters in a majority of states chose to put Donald Trump in the White House..."
No Mr McCarthy. Nice choice of words to dance around the fact a majority of voters did not support this vile man. If not for some antiquated electoral college which gives more weight to rural states, he would not be free to wreak carnage on our system of government and rule of law.
For you to believe that he is anything other than a conniving, money grubbing conman, is feckless on your part.
BTW, a growing majority of Americans don't buy your argument.
1
The choice to put this person in the White House was made by 304 fools of our " no longer needed" Electoral College.
This person has become a Terrestrial Horror.
2
???: "I will support and defend Donald Trump against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to Donald Trump ; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.”
1
Mr. McCarthy, you should have arrived a sooner because, clearly, you have missed the boat.
It is not our "hatred of Donald Trump" that drives all of us that cannot wait for the justice that he has eluded all of his life. Rather, it is about someone in charge of nation that no board of directors would allow for more than 15 minutes to run their company. DJT cares only about one thing: adulation. The fact that he duped people so filled with hate that they elected him president does not invalidate the fact that he does not have the intellectual curiosity, morality, intellect, "people skills," or any other trait that we would expect from a president.
Think I'm wrong about the foregoing? Then, please, in a short essay, compare and contrast the outrage of the Republican Party with President Obama wearing a tan suit, and the hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil members of your party standing by in complicit silence while a naked emperor strips our country of decency, accountability, and any semblance of respected fiscal management. I won't hold my breath waiting for it because your collective hypocrisy was paid for by the Non-Responsible Adults, and they would rather have thousands of dead school children then a scintilla of common sense.
Next step: DJT, the dotard, selling raffle tickets to see who will be the next secretary of whatever. Why not? It is no more stupid a selection process than what we have been experiencing.
MAGA (Revised) - Mueller Ain’t Going Away
1
McCarthy's point might apply to a president with more constancy than a Walmart bag blowing around an empty lot.
2
But what if that single executive branch employee is simply incompetent?
1
No cabinet will reign in the con man in the oval office. An incompetent narcissist surrounded by incompetent ideologues, what could go wrong? His reality show will leave this country in the same state that he left those casinos in Atlantic City.
2
Trump just fired a man right before he would retire and be able to receive his pension after allowing Rex Tillerson to find out he was fired via tweet. He is a coward and he is cruel. He mocked a disabled reporter. He poked at John McCain as he battles brain cancer. He has lied consistently. He performed yet another unhinged, aggressive rant in Pennsylvania. He name calls. He is revengeful and likes to humiliate those who disagree with him. The list goes on. That Mr. McCarthy, someone obviously with intelligence ,is so blindsided by his own conservative dogma, that he cannot "see" this man for who he is, destabilizes my brain . Trump's constant bullying behaviors and gaslighting destabalize the country. I don't get the constant chatter about Trump's policies. He has no policy - no value system to agree with or disagree with - his "value system" is obvious: he needs to win - to be seen as a winner and he will denigrate anyone who blocks that pathological drive.
2
There are so many false, and just plain stupid, assertions in here, I don't know where to begin....
"His great virtue is that... he resists all tutelage."
- The idiocy of this statement is self-apparent.
"Democratic government is healthiest when the people understand that a leader they chose is of one mind with the colleagues that he chooses in turn: that elections matter and produce something like coherent results, with real differences depending on who wins."
- Wrong! You're describing autocratic government. Democracy functions best when multiple perspectives are respected and given credence, leading to thoughtful evolution of policy. Wild swings at the whim of a single branch of government is precisely what our Founders created our system to prevent.
""The real key to policy lies with a single unchanging executive branch employee: Donald J. Trump."
- Again, this is autocracy! In our country, policy is ultimately determined by three co-equal branches of govt.
"Two years ago, majorities of voters in a majority of states chose to put Donald Trump in the White House...."
- Given Russia's interference, we don't yet know if this is an unassailable fact.
"...because of the fact that he campaigned on a foreign policy that would [not] be as hemmed in by humanitarian concerns as Barack Obama’s."
- Of course, a Conservative considers "humanitarian concerns" as negative consideration in policy decisions.
Sniveling sycophants like you didn't build our country; free-thinkers did!
1
What a terrible, sycophantic article. Trump's fragile ego cannot accommodate dissent. His grasp of the role of the Presidency is tenuous and his knowledge of economics and world affairs practically non-existent. The only people he will be able to hire will be people unqualified for the role.
1
So, we’re celebrating a president who doesn’t bother to listen to other people because he thinks he already knows everything, and cabinet members and other senior administration figures who lack qualifications and expertise other than in sycophancy? I knew conservatives prefer voters who are stupid, but I was unaware they valued that in leaders as well.
2
Well, this was a disappointing read in the New York Times. On the one hand, Mr. McCarthy lauds Trump's ability to ignore his aides, on the other, he fails to mention that Trump does listen to the last person who has his ear, and thus makes frequent missteps that throw the White House in "taking it back" mode. Regarding the (lack of) competence of his cabinet and their basic (un) familiarity with the departments they lead, Mr. McCarthy has nothing to say. Betsy deVos cannot even offer Trump the slightest insight. Why was this article written? Why is it here?
1
Lately republicans, like the author here, are so impressively flexible. Now days, any criticism of the president or desire to constrain his impulses constitutes an affront to the sacred election of 2016. I do not recall hearing any of that from conservatives when Obama was president. Never mind that he won by much greater margins (ones that were actually positive). The thing is, Trump is a dangerous idiot, with wholly malevolent intentions, and he needs to be constrained for the good of the country. That's not complicated.
1
So Mr.McCarthy believes that Trump's greatest trait as POTUS "is that he resists all tutelage". Pity the man who thinks he is smarter than everybody else. It could be that McCarthy is even more arrogant than POTUS is insufferable.
1
If there is ANYONE on the planet who needs supervision, it's Trump.
1
The only fact that the writer got right was that Our Dear Leader was elected. Based on his current behavior, he does need the advice and guidance from more experienced individuals from a variety of fields, regardless of their political affiliations or lack thereof. For instance, perhaps a high school senior studying basic economics could research the claimed trade deficit with Canada, and get back to the President on that.
1
A president's selected colleagues can only be of "one mind" with their leader if that leader (A) has a mind, and (B) that mind contains clear goals and directions. Neither is true in the present instance.
4
This column, purporting to be a serious discussion about presidential governance, is absurd on its face for any number of reasons. Not only does Mr. McCarthy contradict himself from paragraph-to-paragraph, but he also fails to acknowledge that everyone who serves in office takes an oath to defend the Constitution, which is far different than simply doing the bidding of the President. By Mr. McCarthy's reasoning, if Trump, for example, were to order the nuclear (or other) bombing of No. Korea -- because that's just what he wants to do that day (after watching Fox and friends) -- then his Cabinet and other officials should carry out those orders. The ultimate logic of Mr. McCarthy's hypothesis -- that government appointees' loyalty to a president should trump (no pun intended) their loyalty (and oath) to the country and the Constitution -- is just plain wrong, both as a matter of law and, given the reality of the mental health of this President, because such fealty constitutes an existential threat to our nation and everyone of us.
8
If this was what the American constitution depicted, then it seemed deeply flawed. I thought the constitution was based on the understanding of human nature, both strong and weak.
1
Whatever a president's policies are, their implementation requires knowledge of
the relevant facts. Trump has repeatedly demonstrated that he has the facts wrong (e.g., out trade balance with Canada). So even in full agreement with the policy of improving the US trade balance, one who knows the facts would not attack our allies who help our economy. This is why, as many other commentators have pointed out, any president needs advisors who know how things actually work, not fantasists nor ideologues who don't (e.g. Kudlow)
3
Under new leadership, the Times editorial section, esp. it's op-ed pieces, is becoming an embarassment. The new editorial director has already tried to dampened down discussion within the staff by suggesting it be kept private--the very antithesis of what the transparency Times stands for, and is its strength! When the editorial sector suborns the Times' own mission, through mandates of that limit transparency, through editorials and op-ed pieces that are spin and shameful ideology, when comments are closed on editorials which were once a sounding board for broad public insight and sentiment, when irrelevancy enters op-ed pieces, when the main issues of public policy are trivalized, the Times has damaged its obligation, and become merely the print edition of Fox News.
Not because of its new direction, but because it has altered its standard. Ideology has replaced logic, evidence has given away to invented principles, details are ignored as deflections are substituted.
I oppose the constant presence of press releases and ideology that have masqueraded as insight and deep thought. From Erik Prince to others, readers have been forced to revisit dead horses being flogged. A private mercenary force, treatises on tariffs, and this piece on the President's staff that presumes an authoritarian regime while denying the creativity of teams, have been featured. Each struck major flaws. Is the Times becoming flawed in the guise of being contemporary?
17
The purely populist principal on which this article is based is sound in theory, but terrible in practice.
(1) The election was not decided by a majority. An election where the “winner” loses by 3 *million* votes would go straight to a runoff in any sane society. This govt does not have majority support, especially now given polling, and the people understandably want it reigned in.
(2) I know people who voted for the man in power, they did not vote that way to usher in a new era of offensive and belligerent war. Just the opposite, the man himself campaigned on the terrible disaster of Iraq and people believed he would put our people first, above irresponsible military adventures.
(3) In a functioning Democracy with checks and balances, there are actual real life checks and balances. Not a Congress of sycophants crawling over each other to give the top disingenuous praise. Not loyalist courts that are stacked with people who don’t even have a single day of courtroom experience.
With these checks gone, the only thing left is the will of an authoritarian, and the advisers around him who this author just so eloquently argued should do his will and bidding.
15
Nice try Mr. McCarthy. There is simply no point arguing with American Conservatives, who have lurched so hard to the right in the last 20 years that they have their own grievance and hate-based media, their own facts, their own set of morals, and their own warped vision of an America that blames others for their lot in life.
Trump and the alt-right have to go. Period.
20
This op-ed is based on the assumption that Trump is competent. He is not, so the author's entire argument collapses.
18
Good God, is this St. Patrick's Day, or April Fools? I literally had to consult my calendar. I have read some tripe in my life, but this takes the cake. NYT editors, I understand and respect your effort to present both sides of pressing issues, but shouldn't they bear some resemblance to reason? You are better than this, and we are more deserving.
Trump is madder than Captain Ahab, and this is not the Pequod. It's time for a mutiny - I suggest November.
31
At the age of 92 I am somewhat rewarded at my life's rapidly approaching end by the definitive joke the world has become.
15
I would think that Daniel McCarthy, here identified as a spokesperson for a conservative publication, would put his conservative credentials at risk by suggesting that Donald Trump be entitled to a free hand in formulating government policy without regard to what has gone before in previous presidential administrations. Nowhere in the Constitution is any such power stated or fairly implied. Article II, section 3, states states that "he shall Take Care That the Laws be faithfully executed,..." In this regard, the President is not a free agent. He governs, he has no writ to be a king or a dictator. Regardless of his supporters' views, the President's authority is governed by the Constitution, not by his campaign rhetoric. If tjis is what it means to be a Consrrvative by Daniel McCarthy's lights, we need to have a new and better definition of 'Conservativism'.
10
What nonsense. While the country's decision (electoral or otherwise) in 2016 has given Trump power, he has not been magically granted any knowledge or expertise. If he were a man of greater maturity and self-awareness, an optimist might have imagined a presidency where Trump recognized how the deadly seriousness of his responsibilities and spent every waking moment asking for briefings and explanations. Any rational person with an OUNCE of humility (assuming resignation was not possible) would become the most diligent student on the planet.
Instead Trump primps and preens for the camera and holds self-congratulatory pep rallies to reinforce his delusions of intellectual superiority. He spends far more time hitting the links than learning his new vocation. He flippantly brushes off things like security briefings and has even admitted to signing Executive Orders without fully comprehending the consequences. This is not unlike his "100%" assurances to release "memos" he's never read. There's no true exercise of judgment or informed decision-making from him, only juvenile self-indulgence. Far from basing policy on the advice of his own chosen personnel, his advisors often hear about policy declarations in the same manner and time as anyone else... via early-morning Tweet or cable news (see, e.g., the travel ban, transgender ban, North Korea meeting, etc.). How can they pull their oars in the same direction when Trump keeps leaving them on the dock?
17
"An old joke attributed to Groucho Marx has a politician declaring: 'These are my principles. If you don’t like them, I have others.' The same can be said about President Trump’s personnel — if you don’t like them, he has others." But the same cannot be said of Trump's principles, for the self-evident reason that he has no principles. As he told Justin Trudeau, he makes stuff up. As he did not tell Justin Trudeau, he then forgets all about what he made up and makes up something else. To ascribe to such a con artist any vision of America, such as the vision that supposedly won him his votes, is totally off the mark.
7
"His great virtue is that he cannot be molded by his advisers; he resists all tutelage."
No. He resists all virtue.
14
Trump is expendable too is the take-away.
We certainly expect that to be the case.
4
In order to govern Trump would actually have to care about something other than himself. And so far I've seen no evidence of that.
9
Drawing from lessons on Reconstruction, we see how President Andrew Johnson fought for the right to select or fire cabinet members who shared similar policy views with his own. While this effort came one vote shy of removal from office, the Supreme Court did, some decades later, affirm Johnson's position.
That said, efforts by Radical Republicans to save Reconstruction from lenient, racist policies of Johnson were temporarily successful as they seized the policy initiative from an inept administration. Their tactics, (especially the Tenure of Office Act), were not always subtle, but they did recognize something the opinion piece's author conspicuously omits. There are times when it is painfully obvious that the person in the White House is not up to the job, and having a competent cabinet is at least as important to the country as it is having an unfit Executive comfortable with his advisors.
5
The most glaring flaw in the author's argument is the fact that the President's choices for his Cabinet are subject to Senate confirmation.
6
The problem is people's believe that the president must be stopped. It demonstrates how out of touch people are, especially those on the left. When people felt this way about Obama, they were accused of racism. Of course, this time it's different. Isn't it always when you're the one feeling angry and abused?
The president was elected because of the beliefs he holds. The left will just have to learn to accept that their views are not prominent in this Administration. Ultimately, they'll come to understand that their views are not unanimously held and they're, well, just another group with strong opinions.
4
Well, they're not just another group with strong opinions. Based on the 2016 election, they're the majority.
7
What McCarthy says would be true if we had a president whose behavior didn't need controlling. We need to be protected from this president; his egomania and indifference to the needs of anyone but his own self have already harmed countless individuals. Furthermore, everything McCarthy says about his vision of governance pretty much definesa a dictator, not a president.
3
How many administration members have been fired or resigned because of something connected to Mueller's criminal investigation, or the Congressional inquiries into them? There's no doubt about what the author is saying, but Comey and Hope Hicks and Flynn and a bunch of others didn't resign because of anything to do with policy, unless by policy you mean crime. And it isn't over yet.
3
That’s all well and good provided you made a good choice in the first place. What if after the fact, it is evident that you didn’t have all the information you needed to make the decision properly? Case in point- while living in Prague with limited Czech I purchased what I thought was butter. After making a mess in the pan I realized I had bought “butter cheese”. By your logic I should’ve continued to use it as butter, despite the consequences.
5
It matters very much who this president surrounds himself with because he is uniquely unqualified to be president and the Republican controlled Congress that should be the check on him noticeably refuses to do its duty to do so.
2
The majority of voters (In the majority of states) chose to put Donald Trump in the white house? Cherry picked words. The majority of voters DID NOT pick Donald Trump, but if you word it just right it sounds sort of democratic....sort of.
4
If these were normal times much of what you stated would be true. These are not normal times. We have a president who is, by all normal measures, unfit for office...an opinion shared by both sides of the aisle. The people he is choosing to surround himself with are incompetent or dangerous in their own way. Your rather sanguine view of all this is, frankly, astounding. As for your comment regarding his election by a majority I can only repeat what the election really showed: He lost the popular vote; he won three states by 77,000 votes which gave him the Electoral College majority (an institution established to prevent precisely the result we are stuck with) and which might turn out to have been a result of voting irregularities or outside influence (Russian, to be exact). Dream on, if you wish, the rest of us will fight to save the Republic.
108
Well that's an interesting viewpoint in which I do not concur even if there was a measured, balanced and experienced policy maker in the Oval Office. Using this appeasing rationale, any twit could become president just because of some easy campaign promises, only to be unchecked when in power. There is no virtue in despotism, but hey with Trump were getting a real taste of the novel experiment!
2
Your right Daniel. Trump was elected to govern with qualified dedicated people. Not a single person in his cabinet belongs in their position. He was also not elected to give super plum political jobs to Ivanka and Jared.
2
Does anyone even believe that Trump could give a lucid accurate decription of what an 'economic nationalist' really is. In this description I would also want to him to set out in detail the 'unintended consequences of such an ideology and how he intends to overcome those. Cofvefe!
2
"he resists all tutelage."
Yes, we can agree that he refuses to learn. Not surprised to see someone from the right champion ignorance as a virtue to aspire to, to not better yourself as a goal to reach for.
3
Oh please. One of the 'criteria' stated by Trump on why he asked Kudlow to be his economic advisor was that 'he looked great on TV.'
Trump clearly needs all the help he can get and then some.
1
This does not make me feel better about a President who runs the White House like an episode of The Apprentice. I'll be happier when the show is cancelled.
3
I will gladly contribute to any campaign to help support Stormy Daniels’ legal funds or any fines she incurs.
4
I agree with your points in general. However, I am a Trumpian exceptionalist. He is so uniquely, singularly awful that, yes, his aides should keep him in check. If Trump carries through with even a fraction of his incredibly awful ideas then my life and yours are literally at risk.
4
There will be no empror if there were no moral-free storm troopers; there will be no reality-show presidency if there were no adoring fans. That's fine. Time will pass. But what age and what country are we in, when authors openly justify and call for uncondtional loyalty in a democracy?
2
This opinion ignores the fact that this President is a deeply flawed human being who through a series of unfortunate events has landed in the position of leader of the free world. Thank goodness for any checks and balances democracy provides for bridling the selfishness evident in his motives.
1
The author's premise is so wrong - dangerously wrong - on so many counts.
1. ""Cabinet members and executive-branch officials are not supposed to be a check on the president; they serve at his pleasure, after all.........But their place is not to second-guess the president or the outcome of the last election""
** No! Only if they are not acting in the overall interest of the country at large. The President is not a dictator - he serves at the pleasure, not of himself, but of the people. Not just the people who voted for him, but all people. Forcing decisions that by all measures of reason are obviously erroneous - like firing missiles at North Korea as a stunt - are not what the job describes. Purposely subverting democratic institutions for political gain should be vehemently defended against, and decried by all his staff in their loudest voices, not them riding along with his whims and fancies. They also swear to hold the countries broad interests at heart.
2. ""they also show how easily a dislike of Mr. Trump can lead to a dangerously distorted view of government"
** No! Failure to call out Trump's megalomaniac tendencies will destroy our government.
I could go on. Almost every of the author's sentences belie his failure to understand that winning an election is only a selection process - he/she does not become the leader of only the faction that voted for him/her. That equal treatment clause is ingrained into the job of President.
2
Let's also not forget he did not win the popular vote.
1
Balderdash, Mr. McCarthy, unless Stalin's reign of terror is your model for the White House. Which I suppose it may be.
Donald Trump was elected with no experience in government, little or no relevant education or expertise in many areas subject to White House directives - oh, let's just take the law for example. His claim to fame is that he's the wealthy heir of a rather unsavory New York slum lord, and himself a failed businessman who resurrected himself, after multiple bankruptcies, by playing a tough guy 'tycoon' on television and parlaying that media exposure into a 'brand.' His pal Roger Stone gets it - Trump is all media sizzle, very little steak.
And what steak there is, is quite frankly distasteful.
Given all that, a man with a bit of self-awareness and appreciation for the gaps in his own knowledge and skills might surround himself with people who actually know what they're doing, and who might gently guide him in the right direction.
Instead, we've got a guy who demands unconditional loyalty, a willingness to change course on a dime in tune with his own mercurial moods, and the ability to lie in the face of incontrovertible contrary facts without betraying the strain.
After failing to find what he's looking for among the many far more competent and stable than he, Trump is now reverting to what he knows: the talking heads and bloviators on Fox. Thus Larry Kudlow, thus possibly John Bolton.
God knows who's next - Ms. Pirro or Judge Judy for attorney general?
3
This would be true if Trump actually ran for office because he wanted to govern. But this man did not. He simply wanted to campaign; to stand on a stage an be applauded.
And he had a lot in common with the times in which we live -- both were unconventional, frightening and protean. Those who elected him did so either as a protest or because they believed his lies.
His unblemished incompetence was hidden from a minority of voters. The electoral college rules did the rest.
1
I totally agree. It's about time we removed the 'elites' from government, and Donald Trump is just the non-elite to do it. Elites in the State Department, i.e. people who actually study things and can deal with uncertainty and probability, need to be replaced by people who go with their gut and when the President says "jump", they say "how high". That epitome of deep state, Rex Tillerson, had to go because he was part of the foreign policy elite.
But why stop there? We needs elites out of health, education, economics and science. Go with your gut, that's where the knowledge is! Those pointy-headed elites with hoity-toity degrees, who write books and articles and speak in complete sentences and won't be 100% certain need to go!
3
This is a dangerous article. Its underlying premise is that Trump is a legitimate president making logical decisions, based upon analysis and information and a full airing of options, designed to benefit the nation and the world. If Trump is, to the contrary, an impulsive predator and puppet of a foreign power who is solely out to enrich and entrench himself in violation of democratic norms, then this article enables Trump and thwarts efforts to bring him to justice.
3
Mr. McCarthy expects us to afford Donald Trump a pass on the past sixteen months because he picked advisers who cramped his style. Mr. Trump could not have tweeted it better himself.
Well, buckle up everybody because it looks like “Donald Trump’s wildest impulses will soon be unchecked.”
Rationalize all you want. Trump is still and will almost always be wrong for America.
Man-o-man: It does take a lot of moxie to try to explain Trump Madness. Start with the title: "Trump Was Elected To Govern Without These People" morphs into:
"Democratic government is healthiest when the people understand that a leader they chose is of one mind with the colleagues that he chooses..."
There's an old proverb that says:
"Seest thou a man wise in his own conceit? There is more hope of a fool than of him."
The Companion proverb: "Plans fail for lack of counsel, but with wise advisers, the succeed."
Static Thought in an un-static world will get you.....Donald Trump.
The distorted view of this writer is clear throughout the piece. For example, Mr. McCarthy's claim that:
" His great virtue is that he cannot be molded by his advisers; he resists all tutelage. He was elected because the people who do the molding in our politics have for too long led our country down a path of destruction..."
is sadly misguided.
First, Trump resist all tutelage because he does not have the intelligence to take advantage of it. He is a brutish reactionary with limited abilities , except the capacity to take advantage of the weakness or others. For those of us who live in NYC this has been apparent for decades, as it is now apparent to all the world---except to Mr. McCarthy.
Second his election had little to do with "the people who do the molding in our politics" and the voters view of them. It had to do with an electorate that has been debilitated, by 20 years of Fox News and other right wing propaganda, about our society and politics generally and about Hillary Clinton in particular, and so was "easy picking" for a slick con man like Trump
Finally,there has been no "path of destruction". America is and has been massively successful in the modern world. However we have allowed too much wealth concentration. Trump is clearly not the solution to that problem---as evidenced by his tax plan.
Frankly, while I understand that the Times likes to present a conservative point of view ----its should not give voice to every crack pot with a pen.
3
now, look at the people who he has to get in order for that support. very telling, if you ask me, who he is being surrounded by.
Who is this guy anyway? Ok, a "conservative" apologist who doesn't apologize, that's for sure. Perceptive people who care about our country are already commenting here about the fancy footwork in the language, which is all the "conservatives" can do to make a sane and moral point. I put that word in quotes because they are no longer just conservative--they've devolved into radical extremist authoritarians. Yes, the president is elected to be in charge, but the general commentary about the staff for this one being babysitters is *because* of this one, a plain fact that is totally overlooked by McCarthy. The babysitting, care-taking, whatever, has been necessary due to this aberration of a human being in the Oval Office. But, oh, someone typically so blinded by the radical extremist ideology has to word things as if Trump were normal. There is no other defense. Trump has more than ample behavioral features of a dangerous mental disorder. Yes, again, everything does go back to that person at the center of things--now all the chaos with vain attempts to contain it, of course. The sooner we're rid of that person by all lawful means, the better, preferably a.s.a.p. Then get rid of any power held by Pence through voting a minority of Republicans in Congress.
1
Resisting the...advice...of his advisers is neither great nor virtuous. Trump has no policy experience. 'Winging it' is not in the best interest of this country's institutions or its people.
1
"These are my principles. If you don't like them, I have others" exactly describes Trump. If he has any at all. No need to go changing words in that Marx quote. The shoe fits him just fine.
Daniel McCarthy is the editor of "Modern Age." I do not think he understands what the modern age is. He seems to be living in the sixteenth century and believes that Trump, like Louis XIV, governs by divine right.
3
The premise is sound when the man or woman occupying the Oval Office is remotely competent.
When you have somebody with no redeeming quality other than to garner television ratings as POTUS, it is the nature of others to help guide the President away from touching fire, exposed electrical wiring, and driving the bus off a cliff.
This is seemingly a family intervention on behalf of a child. I don't want my POTUS to take us down with him. I want America to thrive. Tough love won't get us there, because he's driving the bus. Maybe the (soon to be new) Cabinet has special escape pods? The rest of us do not.
1
Actually, the conclusion is wrong. He hasn’t proven that hhe can govern without policy experts. Only time will show whether clearing out the administration of people with expertise has harmed us as a country. But, I would argue that history shows us expertise is valuable for a reason. There’s no other example of naïve inexperienced people thriving in a complex environment. There’s no reason to think that this is going to happen in government either.
Mr. McCarthy gives Trump way too much credit. The shake ups are hardly from a deliberative leader who is carefully molding his team. Instead, Trump, being the insecure child that he is, simply resists any form of dissension. His guiding principle are simple: claim that anything Obama did was wrong and needs to be undone; place himself as the supreme intellect and strongman of the country ("I am the best...." "I am the first...." "No other president...."); slither among policy issues to keep his base (extreme right wingers, white supremacists, NRA....) happy. And he simply needs to be surrounded by sycophants like "kiss up, kick down" Bolton to kid himself that he is our greatest leader.
4
“Their duty is to assist him, their oars all pulling in the direction set by the captain.”
Is it their duty to follow Captain Queeg?
4
Trump's own campaign promises about having "the best people" show the basic emptiness of your thesis, Mr. McCarthy. Trump himself accepted the premise that he needed the expertise and advice of others. Your definition of democratic government seems to be dictatorship with a four (or eight) year limit. It is not. The founders built many checks on the president's power. (Although clearly not enough). You also create a straw man argument by claiming that people's concerns about Trump's incompetence are due to simple dislike. They are not. The man is a pathological liar and proves his unhinged nature in tweet after tweet. And by the way, Trump was not elected by American public but by the electoral college.
4
If Tillerson's departure was just a matter of time, then his appointment in the first place was just a matter of unpreparedness. Trump is unprepared to lead this country in almost every way, and Americans like the author have the philistine "president" that they deserve.
3
The only way a position like this can be taken is either to be a cluelessly horrible judge of personality and character, or someone with a dark agenda. Judging trump is not a matter of politics or economics. The dishonesty, the complete lack of character, the erratic behavior, the incompetence, of trump, are so apparent that a piece like Mr. McCarthy's cannot be explained away by mere partisanship; this is willful obfuscation of reality for some nefarious purpose. You really can't be that clueless. You might want to think about the future of your credibility.
6
"Cabinet members and executive-branch officials are not supposed to be a check on the president; they serve at his pleasure, after all. Their duty is to assist him," Under normal circumstances and a normal presidency that statement is correct. But Trump and his presidency are the most abnormal and dangerous in the history of the nation. The Neville Chamberlain appeasement Republican-led Congress is too terrified to use its check on this madman. If the courts and the press can't do it it has to be people in the administration perhaps under the powers of the 25th amendment.
2
Of course no one should stop a duly elected President from filling a Supreme Court vacancy with his candidate...
2
Trump doesn't govern, he reacts.
1
Hoo boy, I don't know how best to respond to this. I give some deference to NYT for its attempt at "fair & balanced", but at least Stephens (and even, once in a blue moon, Douthat) sometimes have a reasonable point to make.
This nonsense has been justifiably pilloried by the readers, and I don't want to repeat any of the push-back, but I will ask one thing.
To the author and other Trumpists who may have the ear of the POtuS, if there's one restraint you might implore of him, let it be: keep away from my country. He lied to our Prime Minister, and admitted it. We don't want any liars visiting (have enough of our own).
Thanks.
1
Mr. Trump's ideal cabinet would consist of himself and 16 of his clones. He told us this in the campaign--"I alone can fix this."--and made it abundantly clear with the sickening and videoed scramble for the cabinet members to outdo one another in singing His praises.
I see Mr. Trump talk and I here the Pixar seagulls from Finding Nemo: "Mine! Mine! Mine!". It's not only seagulls or pigeons best described as rats with wings.
2
Good point someone else made: a cabinet is meant to help a president not hold him back. But that goes for a normal president. The point to hold in mind about Trump is that he is abnormal, radically abnormal.
2
This "great virtue" is also a profound ignorance of the whole world. We have seen it in contradictions with himself, lies exposed before the fact can pass from memory, and policies which have no theme apart from mindless reactions to what what wasn't predicted by liars. While these tendencies may occasion such excuses for the complete lack of judgment handling important issues in this state of selfishness, it can can never justify the pursuit of naked power for the sake of purely self-interest. This opinion turns sovereignty into lunacy, with foreign interests in charge of a spoiled brat grown into a monster waging against democracy, freedom, and human dignity in order to distract us from his many treasonous affinities dedicated against the common good of any society from the sake of a Russian murderer.. What happened to morals here? Follow the money?
1
The argument proposed here is nonsense: Many voters voted for Trump despite his obvious incompetence and recklessness, because they assumed he would make up for it by assembling a competent team of experts. In fact, he even promised this himself. So it is reasonable to worry when his team just consists of yes-men that merely mirror his own worst instincts.
9
What rubbish. The president cannot be a superman, a semi-divine king knowledgeable in all aspects of his kingdom's affairs, needing only ministers to implement his kingly directives that in turn express his kingly insights.
Fortunately the president is not supposed to be. He's supposed to have advisers, most importantly but not exclusively in his cabinet, with the specialized expertise he generally lacks. Trump got elected in part by repeatedly asserting he was going to get 'the best people', which reassured certain of his more careful supporters that he wasn't just going to wing it on lies, instincts, hunches and stuff he just plain makes up.
Mr. McCarthy's dangerous piece suggests that 'the best people' were always irrelevant, because Trump was all; that's what the American public voted for; and this is a good thing. Let's put aside that Trump lost the popular vote by so wide a margin that any responsible elected official would temper their beliefs with respect for the views of the majority that voted against them. Mr. McCarthy's views are essentially that the American public should receive the full punishment that they (or their Electoral College) voted for.
Like too many Trump supporters, this sounds like Mr. McCarthy despises the United States and wants it destroyed. The rhetorical trick of claiming patriotism by attempted bifurcation into 'the government' (which is supposed to be evil) and "true Americans" (who are supposed to be good) is as absurd as it sounds.
6
The author's essential point seems to be that past presidents, being the "policy elite", have done a horrible job and that Donald Trump, contemptuous of all knowledge that didn't originate with him, is the appropriate antidote to their serial failure, wisely chosen by a minority of American voters. Therefore his desires to surround himself with sycophants and to govern as an autocrat should be applauded rather than condemned, since he "and he alone" can put the country on the right track. What absolute nonsense.
7
I'm not sure it's a "dangerously distorted view of government" to expect the President, regardless of what policies he chooses to pursue, to gather facts, listen to the opinions of experts, and make informed, rational decisions. While many of us do not like Trump's policy choices, the reason we want "adults in the room" is not so much to check the President's policies but to ensure that he is acting rationally and with the best interest of the nation in mind and not making decisions purely to feed his ego or satisfy his petty vindictiveness.
12
My major concern is not with Mr. Trump's right and privilege in selecting a cabinet closely aligned with his mission, but rather, his poor judgments in selecting his staff to begin with. Much as he ran his campaign, the Wight House has become a model of chaos stemming from his impulsivity, poor planning, lack of insight, and generally poor counsel from advisors generally selected for their capacity as sycophants.
I would suggest that a real effort should be made to make his selections right the first time, as constant staff turnover in any institution (or business) is demoralizing and self-defeating. This nation deserves better than a President who cannot plan ahead better than this and our allies deserve more dependability and consistency from our Executive's representative personnel.
2
Mr. McCarthy seems not to get that the President does not know how to do his job, has a short attention span, doesn't read, and doesn't know much of anything that isn't directly related to real estate. Whoever is in his cabinet has to grabble with the fact that their boss is incompetent. So, his cabinet will continue to be in flux for the remainder of his Administration.
6
Mr. McCarthy may be broadly correct under the assumptions of basic honesty, intelligence and decency that America's founders considered qualifications for service, but seems entirely blind to the utter lack of any of those qualities in the unfortunate Mr. Trump. As such, I find this editorial completely without substance or merit, and I doubt with all sincerity that he would ever be so forgiving of a Democratic president.
5
Mr McCarthy would do well to look into President Lincoln's cabinet, men chosen for their expertise even though several of them thought they'd make a better President than Lincoln himself. He chose them, knowing that some of them disagreed with him on critical issues, but also aware that he might need their input as he faced the most dangerous period in American history. His wisdom was proven when the United States weathered a terrible civil war without a violent revolution in government, possibly the only time in world history when a nation did so. Simply enabling a leader by sycophantic agreement, on the other hand, symbolizes the extraordinary idea that one man can do no wrong. If that were the case, then Trump would be a god, a situation that I hope Mr. McCarthy doesn't believe.
4
This is a hilariously ridiculous column! "Mr. Trump had no experience in government. He had few friends or allies with such experience to draw upon when he entered office." Indeed, and he is not cultivating any of these things now. If the problems with Trump were only that simple. Were it not for foreign interference, low information voters and a terrible campaigner for a Democratic candidate Trump's candidacy would be relegated to the dustbin of history. The real questions now are: how quickly can we rid ourselves of him and his sycophants,;and will we be able to clean up the mess he leaves in his wake?
10
I'm disgusted by the argument made by the President that he is merely sifting through advisors and staff so that they more closely are in sympathy with his beliefs and policies. Trump was an executive? Pathetic! One would think that basic questions of policy and philosophy would have been discussed when interviewing potential cabinet members and advisors. Over and over it appears that the departures were a result of the individual disagreeing over basic policy directions. So exactly why were they chosen for their positions in the first place?
3
God bless the Times for presenting a range of views on its op-ed pages. But this justification of Mr. Trump and his presidency makes no sense. First, Mr. Trump, did not win the popular vote. Second, since Washington appointed Jefferson and Hamilton cabinet positions, voters and the larger citizenry have, for good reasons, held presidents accountable for the people they select as advisers and members of their administration. Third, the roles of these appointees become more important when the president is incompetent, ill-prepared, ignorant of important issues and information, or out of his or her depth. This is clearly the case with Mr. Trump. That he is also cavalier and reactive, not to mention vindictive and insecure, and, at the same time, possessed with immense power--to risk nuclear war or ignore foreign attacks on our democratic process--can only mean that most citizens, including the president's supporters, hope and pray that the people around him can contain his worst instincts. To argue anything else is to effectively argue that the basic safety and security of our nation and its people matter not a whit.
12
Some of those policy elites with their "mystique" actually knew what they were doing, a stark contrast to the clueless captain and crew of the rudderless ship of state we are hoping survives.
5
Any intelligent person understands that they cannot possibly know everything they need to know in order to serve wisely and thoughtfully as President of the United States. The team around a President brings knowledge and assessments that are critical in evaluating any action to be taken and to ensure that it is in the best interests of ALL the people in this country. Those who are appointed by the President should be highly educated in the field for which they are appointed to serve, and the President should carefully consider their advice because they are expert in fields of which he has little knowledge. Trump exhibits absolutely no ability to recognize this critical factor of governing. It is morally and intellectually disheartening to think we will have to endure another 3 years of his ignorant willfulness.
4
This writer is supporting a wrong-headed and dangerous thesis, that shuffling cabinet posts represents no threat to the country's stability.
As a psychologist, allow me to interject a grave concern regarding Trumps emotional stability.
Trumps initial insecurity in being unqualified to be president has now been replaced by a false sense of self confidence that is resulting in an increase in impulsive decisions and a centering of his authoritarian personality.
In appointing more authoritarian cabinet members who will not disagree with his angry mean spirited approach to governing, he has set up a scenario to make even more dangerous decisions without someone like Tillerson to check him.
We Americans are courting disaster if we don't remove Trump from office. Lacking republican support for removal, a grass roots nation wide movement in the streets as well as in social media may be the best way to jump start an impeachment process or 25th Amendment removal!
9
I dispute with the author that cabinet is not meant check on President. Remember 25th amendment - well that is when Vice President and cabinet may consider President completely incompetent. Now between complete yes-sir and complete removal there are things that can happen in the middle - that is what we may call check and balance.
2
Trump was elected to govern within a particular system: a democracy. This particular democracy, ours, was designed to guard against the overreach of a leader like Trump. This man Trump seems intent on destroying those safeguards for the sake of his beleaguered ego. Not only does he need to be surrounded by policy elites, he also needs a Congress that will keep him in his place. Hopefully that will be delivered this November. Even with the help of Putin, Trump merely became a president, not an emperor, however badly he and his faithful desire otherwise.
4
Trump is not a conservative in any sense. He is not a good businessman having gone bankrupt four time in the recent past. He is not well verse in history, sociology, Americana, or international affairs. He is a braggart and a liar. He was elected President of our democracy, and will serve his four years in office. But Mr. Trump cannot govern. He doesn't know how, and can cannot learn.
4
Oh, thank you for explaining what did not need explaining.
Yes, Trump was elected; conservatives need to get over that this is not the issue. I don't contest that. Yes, Trump needs to be controlled like no other president because he is like no other president in his demeanor and lack of knowledge. His own party feels that way. This sentiment has no carryover or implications for other presidents. Yes, Trump has the right to nominate whoever he wants, but it would help if he nominated people who actually knew something about what they are supposed to do and thinking in line with their agency, but he mostly has not - Pruitt, Perry, DeVos, Carson and others all fail that test on one or both counts. Yes, these picks are in line with Trump's ignorant views in trying to do things that can't be done, and for those that can be done, in direct conflict with the actual interests of those who voted for him. Having people who would actually tell him that, educate him, would be a good thing, rather than having advisors who similarly don't know what they are doing.
So, I'd say, let him run amok - it will make it all that much easier to get rid of the loonies in the senate, house, and white house in 2018 and 2020.
3
Silly article. Nobody knows if an elected public official is capable of doing the job, the presumption is that the elected official can do the job. If it proves to be that that person is unsuited because of a lack of ability or inclination to perform the duties of the official position, there is no rational reason to allow that person to create chaos or to bring the community into peril. Being elected President is not being elected absolute ruler for four years. The sovereignty in our government remains with the people, the Congress and the President exercise their authority within limitations determined by law, and when they fail to perform or violate the laws, they lose their legitimate authority. Trump is elected but if he does not behave reasonably he loses his authority and it is in the power of the Congress, the Courts, and the people to object and to demand that he rise up to his responsibilities or leave.
3
"He can govern, and we can live, without them"
Whatever Mr. Trump is doing, it barely resembles governing, and if he/they lead us into nuclear catastrophe, no one will "live without them."
The idea that Mr. Trump's "great virtue" is that he cannot be "molded" by his advisers is so dangerous and irresponsible that it almost defies comprehension.
4
Wow.
What a narrow yet brilliantly eloquent justification of the flaws of Trump, and more importantly of the flaws that Trump exposes in the American system.
If 'modern Republicans' such as the author actually believe this, and many do, it’s at least useful in explaining why America seems to be heading in such a bizarre and troubling direction.
McCarthy's words read as a reminder of American democratic institutions, but an alternate lens makes it feel more an instructive elucidation on how authoritarianism came to flourish in the world's alleged leading democracy. Sure, the President has the right to do everything he does, unchecked by advisors, cabinet, the party and even by congress it seems. But isn’t this sounding a lot like like unrequited dictatorship?
As an Australian living in the U.S. for seven years largely because of my love of big chunks of the American ideal, including its freedoms, it hurts to see all this happening. But the most perplexing part is, how did it all happen? The simple answer might be that the system of checks and balances in place never accounted for a time like ours or a man like Trump. Let alone both.
Maybe that system needs a dramatic rethink. Otherwise, in many years to come, in the section of history on why 'the American experiment' failed, there will be a good amount of literature on how a man named Trump showed what can happen when a vicious combination of narcissism, hubris and incredible incompetence got a seat at the Oval Office.
4
A President elected by a minority of voters must have his way, which means feeding his ego and surrounding himself with "yes" men with no or little qualifications for the positions they are put in. Ignorance is a virtue in the Trumpian orbit. Trump getting his way is highly likely to lead to very bad outcomes for this country.
1
I don't think the problem is that people think that Trump's cabinet should be pulling Trump's oars in a different direction. The problem is that Trump is pulling the oars in every direction. And if you've ever rowed with a multi-person team you know that an incompetent coxswain will result in a chaotic crew and a failed boat. The thesis of this article is a non-starter.
1
trump is unqualified and unfit to be POTUS . If he needs a staff to check his moronic behavior he should'nt be in office. I don't think one can make a rational argument in support of a trump presidency.
1
McCarthy's lecture is best delivered to the enablers who assured the public that Trump was no monster, and that we could disregard much of his bluster. Policy would be the province of the adults. Now we can see just the kind of wild and angry people Trump has confidence in. Glib authoritarians all.
2
McCarthy is absolutely right! They serve at the president's pleasure. Trump has exposed how arrogant and out-of-touch our public servants have become. It's almost as though they believe they were elected. They were not.
There are a lot of people, especially newly relegated members of the media, who have learned the hard way that they're not making or dictating policy to anyone.
Please explain. What were public servants doing that you find arrogant and out-of-touch?
Point 1- Trump was BARELY elected using an archaic Electoral College system that gives weight to struggling states in the rust belt and deep south that have low education levels, lower income, are maybe more easily fooled by a media circus and by twitters and Facebook posts from Russians pretending to be Americans. And Trump LOST the popular vote. Yes this is our election law, but c'mon, this time it surely seemed to fail to embody the intent of the forefathers.
Point 2- It is NOT the function of the Congress to simply say, we will pass legislation that the President approves of in advance, so that he will sign it, and if we the Congress pass legislation that the President does not approve of, it will go nowhere. Congress happens to be a DIFFERENT one of the 3 branches of government and serves as a CHECK (read limit) on the power of the Executive branch.
Overall, any President, and especially this President, is NOT king or czar and needs to a) listen to the 51% of voters who voted against him as well as the 49% who voted for him, and b) not BULLY the Legislative Branch Republicans into being his puppets.
And finally, to your editorial, any President who does not listen to a group of experts of his choosing when weighing difficult policy decisions, is a fool. The world is complex and the information to consider is wide and deep, and any president that thinks he is qualified to decide anything without broad and deep counsel, is a FOOL.
2
Seriously ? While the author's point is technically true, we should CERTAINLY HOPE that a President who has zero experience in economic or foreign policy-making, who admittedly doesn't read to learn or understand, and gets his news from only one or two media sources... those that align with his views, would have a care enough to listen to the advisers around him who do.
Even though the rules give him the field, I don't think anyone expected the extent of his governing by whim, indecision, mood and seat of the pants.
1
You could take the approach that McCarthy espouses but you would have to ignore reality to do so. The President is elected to a four year term, He is not appointed as Emperor and there are limits upon his unbridled use of power both written and unwritten. If Trump becomes unmanageable (encouraged by people such as McCarthy) Congress will almost certainly swing to the Democrats. If he becomes dangerous then he could be removed under the 25th Amendment
The tag line should read "Trump shouldn't need to be controlled" because a man competent to lead the country should be thoughtful and be someone who enough self-esteem and also awareness of his limits to seek out the best advice from experts.
Unfortunately Trump is like a 13 year old boy with ADHD in a room full of dangerous chemicals and machine tools. He has to be watched every minute to avoid hurting someone.
1
You know how to identify a smart, capable, highly-qualified leader?
It's easy. Anyone who is a genuinely qualified leader will voluntarily surround themselves with contrarian advisors who aren't afraid to 'manage' them (by, for example, standing up in opposition to the leader when s/he is making a mistake). A real leader WANTS to be "managed" away from their errors by their advisors.
This is because a genuinely smart and capable leader is fully aware of his/her own shortcomings, and is humble enough to know that (a) they don't know everything, and (b) the organization and its goals are more important than the leader's ego. The true leader selects advisors whose counsel he or she can trust, and then s/he will actually listen to them and take their recommendations seriously -- especially when the advisors are contradicting the leader.
Leaders can choose to follow their own instincts over the recommendations of their advisors, of course. But good leaders don't do this lightly, and in particular, they don't simply dismiss the concerns of their advisors, or start charging their advisors with disloyalty when the advisors are simply refusing to act like obsequious sycophants.
This is because a true leader knows that an advisor who tells you when you're wrong is priceless, whereas an advisor who consistently defers to your judgement at the expense of their own is merely worthless.
1
Reading this article all I could think was hogwash! Thus far Trump has proved himself to be uninformed and disinterested in the running of this great country.
We have an abundance of scandals and bad behavior and rampant nepotism, State secrets available to people who don't have clearance to see them and women treated like objects for trumps amusement but the chaos and disorder that surrounds this president has been as serious as a heart attack, I fear for our beloved country.
1
I am often amazed how an author can write calmly and logically about an administration that is neither. The author's basic premise is flawed in that the election of 45 was not democratic in any sense of the word. Interference by a foreign government has been proven, gerrymandering is a fact, voter suppression by the GOP is endemic in our system, and the Electoral College failed in the one responsibility for which it exists, to bar a wholly unqualified, corrupt person from holding our highest office. Oh and almost 3 million US voters gave the majority of votes to the other candidate. I do agree with the author as to the role of the cabinet and this part of his treatise is acceptable. The point he fails to mention though is that Congress is supposed to be the check on the president. The last administration would bear witness that the Congress will challenge everything the president wants to do, even if it is expressly the will of the people. That is not the case now where the silent conspirators watch as the Trump family lines their pockets with largesse and conducts personal business meetings in the White House. People are hoping the cabinet would be a check because THERE APPEARS TO BE NO CHECK ON TRUMP and that is not how our government is meant to function! So the author is correct Donald Trump Doesn't Need to Be Controlled, he needs to be STOPPED!
1
I'm sure that there are defects in a billion dollar bureaucracy, and the Military, Industrial, Medical, and University Complex has only increased since Eisenhower gave the short list. Yet, rather than attempt to bring in those who are professionals who research these dynamics, he gave the job, now most of have forgotten this, to none other to son-in-law Jared.
Off course the President of the United States sets policy, and those that refuse to follow it are rightly fired. Those who despise Trump understand this, but he has turned comity into hatred. Sure, to get elected he fomented rage against his political opponents, but he has never attempted to actually be the leader of the entire country.
He is so vitriolic, that to passively acknowledge him as President is to define this divisiveness as other than contemptible. He does have the power the writer describes, but his garnishing it with gratuitous hatred is so toxic that we hope that his subordinates will resist.
1
President Trump has lived a life of moral squalor. lies and shady deals. The fact that he lost the popular vote made it abundantly clear from the start
that a majority of Americans had serious misgivings about his suitability for the Presidency. His first year in office has done nothing to lessen those misgivings. A man like this is obviously a man who needs careful watching, fair criticism and reasoned opposition whenever it is called for, as do all the men and women who surround and support him.
3
What should we make of this column? On one hand, Trump's choices for advisors "might well mean war" with North Korea or Syria. On the other, we should applaud Trump for "demolish(ing) the mystique of the policy elite. He can govern, and we can live, without them." By "we", I assume the author is excluding those who would die in service to this war.
Not once does this writer acknowledge that the people Trump keeps around him are there not because they share his policy ideas (understandable) or that their personalities gel with him (also understandable) or even that they are personally loyal to him (also understandable if not taken too far). The reason Trump keeps these people around is because he thinks they look good on TV, because that is the depth of his understanding of the world. He says as much over and over again. And that's because he is a pure narcissist who wants to watch himself on TV and watch his advisors as reflections of himself on TV.
1
All said is well and good but, of course, it's not like I was particularly fond of ANY member of his cabinet or benighted "senior advisers" in the first place.
So a few of them go, and he surrounds himself with fellow fans of "Fox & Friends", and other hard-right ideologues.
So his "great virtue is that he cannot be molded by his advisers"? Well, of course, if his advisers are all of like mind to begin with. Being a celebrity first and other characteristics a long-distant-and-clumped-together second, he's going to be attracted to what gives him the greatest fanfare and praise. He forms his own echo chamber.
So...is what's being echoed in the best interest of the nation at large? I guess we all have no choice but to find-out.
He was NOT elected king. He does not rule. He governs. And this government is "... of the people, by the people and for the people." The majority of voters did not vote for Donald Trump and his poll ratings clearly show he does not enjoy the support of the majority of Americans. His advisors are there to advise, yes. But he is expected to listen to their counsel not ignore it to follow his questionable and uninformed instincts. We as a nation do not need and do not want a trade war; the entire world would lose with such war. We certainly do not want a hot war; they settle nothing and cost money and, more importantly, lives. Mr. Trump does not seem to understand this, nor is he mature enough to put his own whims aside to govern responsibly. He seems to be surrounding himself with "yes" men and sycophants because he cannot handle discourse and disagreement. This is the act of a dictator, not a president.
1
Mr. McCarthy, for hundreds of words, neglects the basic truth that Mr. Trump is grossly unfit to be president. In this dangerous situation, responsible people do their best to figure out how to preserve our democracy while limiting the damage that this man can do to the country, its future, and the world.
153
The presidency does not consist of one person alone. The author of this piece should go back and review the early part of the Roosevelt administration for a little perspective. In a time of great crisis, Roosevelt's cabinet was full and active almost immediately. Numerous ideas were put forward by people within the administration with what Roosevelt and others considered the best ideas becoming the New Deal.
An effective cabinet is not a collection of yes-men and women. The cabinet exists because it is a necessary part of a well-functioning government.
1
So this all turns out to be Mr. McCarthy's dream to get rid of the 'policy elite'. This is the same mentality that says: Hey, Michael Jordan wasn't so special, I could do the same if I had his shoes. McCarthy might say as well that what he really wants is leadership that is not either loyal or driven by a desire to serve. Its a bit hard to image that, save that we see them in action, other than to image a convenience store clerk at 3am--about as motivated for service as John Bolton.
If this is the best argument the conservative opinionated can produce we are in for a really bad patch here. He has no sense of history, obligation, loyalty, knowledge, or responsibility. And cavalierly says that that is a very good thing. One might ask: "For whom?" It isn't good for me or the majority of Americans who did not vote for Trump, despite McCarthy slick sentence to the contrary.
My conclusion, after reading this article, is that Trump needs to be removed from office ASAP. The problem is not Trump's policies, but his inability to stay on topic for more than 10 minutes. His inconsistency is the greatest danger. Period. So out he goes. How this happens is an affair of the governing party. If they won't get rid of Trump, there is an election on Nov. 6, and a new set of representatives will do this.
2
whst policies? i woukd give anything to see thought-out, long-term policy planning. lol
This almost reads like a parody, but it has a few telling statements..."resists all tutelage", "[not] as hemmed in by humanitarian concerns as President Obama's"...
In any case, it seems like an unsound proposition. Of course the cabinet is meant to work with the president, but what can a cabinet do when a president is hopelessly inconsistent and unpredictable? In addition, the 25th amendment specifically seems to provide for a case in which the cabinet does not have faith in a president's powers to discharge his or her duties appropriately. Everything I've ever learned about the brilliance of the American political system has centered around the idea of checks and balances, and that a single person is not meant to have absolute power.
4
A true leader surrounds themselves with people who are strong where they are weak. They don't feel the need to live in an echo chamber surrounded by yes men who tell them publicly why they are so grateful to serve their president. Chaos and pitting people against each other might have worked in Trump tower but the stakes are higher when you are president of a country. Lives are at stake and missteps should be avoided if possible. Trump treats the presidency like a game so of course people were hoping that his cabinet would contain him. We'd like to get out of his presidency intact.
3
While cabinet members may serve at the pleasure of the President, they swear an oath of allegiance to the United States of America and our Constitution. Their first allegiance is to the country not its figurehead.
14
Too much chaos. The senate can do us all a favor and refuse to confirm any more of Trump's nominees. Bring him to the table. Use your leverage to bring sanity back to our government.
Or, we can do to you what Trump is doing to his subordinates.
6
“His great virtue is that he cannot be molded by his advisers; he resists all tutelage.”
This is not a virtue, when the president, as you state, has little policy experience, and a shallow knowledge base.
10
In our history, we have never had a president that needed to be controlled in the ways that Trump needs it. Yes, with a "normal" president, this OpEd would make sense. But, most certainly not with Trump.
He doesn't have a governing philosophy. He doesn't know enough about anything to have a governing philosophy. He doesn't have a set of policies that he is committed to . The ONLY thing he is committed to is whatever will serve his serve his ego. All of his actions and all of his words are based on only that one thing---his ego. We have never had a president like this.
So, with someone so unique in our history (and which I pray will never be repeated), yes, he MUST be managed and controlled.
141
Are you kidding? He has no idea what he is doing.
People who are knowledgeable and skilled at what they do are supposed to advise the President and a good President will listen to advisers. HR McMaster is a brilliant military leader. For Trump, who has no military experience, to think he knows better than HR McMaster about national security issues is laughable (if it weren't so scary).
Being an excellent con-man does not make you qualified to make important decisions.
8
You make it sound like Trump actually has policies, plans, and the ability to govern?
Sorry, he is just playing wack-a-mole until he is impeached. In the meantime somebody should take away the scissors.
5
These must be the new rules. According to the old rules, a president is elected to govern on behalf of the people - and the advisors are there to explain the many details and nuances of any given issue. For instance that imposing tariffs on steel has a wide range of consequences, from allies retaliating to the damage it will cause to the industries that rely on steel in their production.
After consultation and deliberation, the president makes the final decision - and then the apparatus start writing speeches to explain the policy, work with congress to pass it into law, and make sure it is both legally and politically viable.
Trump writes a tweet, and expect that is policy. This is why so many of his policies come as a complete shock even to members of his administration, and why there is chaos in the White House. Nobody is in tune with the president, because he himself is clueless until a segment on Fox gets him riled up about.. something.
In this case you really want people around him to exert the impulse control that he himself lack, or else it will go with America as it has with so many of his previous endeavors.
This isn't about finding soulmates, which is a bad idea anyway when you are supposed to balance a multitude of interests. This isn't about the outsider. This is about an ignorant narcissistic liar, who is trying to rule unopposed - by surrounding himself with sycophants who is loyal to him personally.
6
"His great virtue is that he cannot be molded by his advisers; he resists all tutelage."
And therein lies the problem. Trump assumes he knows more than he does. He believes he's the smartest, best, bravest (or any number of superlatives that he uses to talk about himself.) But he is just an ignorant man who fires people who challenge him. There is nothing of "virtue" about a person who is so thin-skinned and so insecure that he can't take counsel or criticism from his advisors.
8
Let's all lock arms and march forward into the abyss. Is that really the message? Well, not for me!
1
Don't forget that Nixon was talked out of using nuclear bombs in Vietnam.
2
" If President Trump is meant to be checked and controlled by staff, what other presidents might be?"
The usual conservative false equivalency. Trump, with his unchecked id, impulses, willful ignorance, innate lack of civility is dangerous. Trump, thus far in American history, is also sui generis.
2
In the case of a normal presidency and a normal president, I would agree with this editorial.
But this president was not elected by the people, but by an electoral college fluke. He is unqualified, uncurious, volatile, lazy, and pathologically narcissistic. He absolutely does need to be managed if at all possible, and removed from office if proven to have obstructed justice or to be in violation of the emoluments clause.
4
McCarthy betrays a basic misunderstanding of (or indifference to) the function of executive branch staff. They serve the nation, not one individual. They're there to understand their departments deeply, and to guide the President via their expertise and advice. The executive is a branch -- not a single person, and not the personal toy of a would-be dictator. If the President is ignorant, misguided, or foolish, it's not their job to carry out his mandates blindly.
6
fyi Mr. McCarthy, "the outcome of the last election" was Trump lost the popular vote. Just saying.
4
This is one of those times that you need to pull out the old cliche, "What in the world is this guy smoking?"
Mr. McCarthy is living in some kind of fantasy world. He has succeeded in normalizing the president to such an extreme degree that you'd think Trump was qualified for office, if you just dropped down from Mars and read his column.
I can't even begin to enumerate the flaws in his perspective, and won't waste my time trying.
5
I agree with this author because the people who voted for Trump deserve the consequences of voting for a bigoted ignoramus.
March 16, 2018
Trump was elected to be Trump come hell or high water and in his command who cares what is the way to govern - since America needs 'my greatness!"
Therein lies the methodology for living in 'his,' presidency and the adage is be careful for what you vote for you might be more surprise to learn what is the remaking of America' s Executive branch for President Trump. Yet there is hope for our nation is a strong and flexible culture of checks and balances to correct for waywardness and wrongheadedness - Yes shock therapy for the estates of our political machinery as true and historic for any and all occasions that require the better angels of judgment and executive orders. There are more people than we can count and will be - are ready to shout and litigate the advisories and sort of commands to make America do what is her her best interest in all matters - but the lessons and new personalities are on the ready to impose discipline to Mr. Donald J. Trump - and he will surely come to appreciate the great perennial American spirit with God Given Grace, truly, timelessly and heroically to keep steady as she goes to ports of call with dignity and history enjoyable.
jja Manhattan, N. Y.
1
There might be some value to the writer’s thinking if the president he seeks to normalize within the long line of presidents was not such a famous con man with a 5+ lies a day habit, who engages in regular insults, schoolyard mockery and obnoxious behavior. This clearly being the case renders the writing just another absurd piece in the hopefully brief age of trump.
2
I have 5 grandchildren under the age of 5. Each of them passed through a stage where the quote: "His great virtue is that he cannot be molded by his advisers; he resists all tutelage." applied to them.
By now all but the 6 month old accept "tutelage" and can be molded by advisers, sometimes requesting advice, sometime just listening, and asking for more or better explanations. They are still young children, and know there is much more they can and will need to learn.
There is no evidence that Trump knows better than his advisers, or has any idea how to select advisers who can help him be more effective and make good choices. His life of divorces, promiscuous unprotected sex, bankruptcy's, frauds, and deadbeat behavior suggests his choices to date have been poor.
There is also no evidence that Trump is even aware of a fact-based universe, and certainly no inclination to seek and verify facts, or to offer them to others.
Worst of all, Trump is a cruel and sadistic human, showing no empathy whatsoever for anyone, and apparently delighting in tormenting others. Again, my 18 month old grandson tries his best to calm the 6 month old, and gentles his 2 1/2 year old cousin when she gets upset. Trump's behavior is to pile on.
Daniel McCarthy apparently believes that ignorant, willful cruelty is optimal for a president, and there is no situation that can possibly arise that might require our president to take an informed set of actions.
Or Daniel McCarthy is simply a troll.
6
What utter hogwash.
McCarthy serves us a word salad with zero nutritional value.
Ideally, the POTUS nominates people with 1) relevant expertise, 2) capacity to inform judgments in a manner the POTUS will actually hear.
The myriad challenges of the presidency are too complex for one person fully master alone. Knowledge, experience and good staff work are the bedrock of good foreign and domestic policy. The POTUS has the charge of synthesizing the advice of those who know into something that the apparatus of government can responsibly execute.
After more than a year in office, Trump is a complete loser as a leader. Other than the Gorsuch gift from McConnell, he has not accomplished even one, single constructive thing. The "Tax Reform" for which he claims credit is fatally flawed and is igniting a brush fire across the agricultural heartland.
He needs to find some people who know what they're doing and then shut up and listen to them.
This is a long way from entertaining.
8
The supposed virtue of Trump, as sold by him, was that he would surround himself with the "best people." His supporters chided us for taking him "literally." Now the brag is that he is in fact ineducable, and refuses to work with anyone with competence. (Can you imagine if sports teams refused to hire "elite" players?) "He resists all tutelage." Arrogant, ignorant, and unchangeable, and refuses to work with anyone knowledgeable.
3
Trump is not normal. He should not be normalized. This piece suggests he should be treated like any normal leader. If he is checked and controlled by staff, what other presidents might be? Any others who are as ignorant, autocratic, biased, dishonest, and dangerous as Trump. If we ever make a comparable blunder again, I hope that the president in question also is recognized as a menace and treated accordingly.
2
I suppose we could also live without a surgical ‘elite’ or a nuclear reactor ‘elite’ , but we’d all be worse off.
1
I think we all know now that Trump was elected in part due to Russian meddling, and the bait and switch of his campaign promises. About 20,000 votes in a few states where the election interference was most profound made a huge difference--Wisconsin and Michigan. Trump lost the popular vote by 3 million--that is a lot of people who wanted a very different kind of leader. I am not alone in believing that were the election to happen today the outcome would be very different.
I think we also know that Trump is an ignorant and uncurious man with no interest in understanding the economy or anything else related to government.
He has always been this man—a loudmouthed, racist, sexist bully with no understanding or interest in the human condition beyond his gold-plated penthouse. I grew up in New York--and we have known who he was for decades now. A tabloid fool, happy for anything that put him on the front page of the Post. He ran his businesses as a liar and a cheat, bankrupting casinos, leaving vendors in the lurch. He was saved by a TV reality show and now believes this qualifies him to make decisions on behalf of the American people.
Mr. McCarthy, there is no plan at this White House. The few “adults” left are running for the exits. The incoming replacements won't last long.
We need restraints on this man until his administration can be muzzled following the midterm elections this fall which would immediately restore the separation of powers sorely missing now.
3
I get the sense Mr. McCathy is looking to fill a Cabinet post. But, since our President doesn't read, you better hope someone reads this nonsense to him.
2
"His great virtue is that he cannot be molded by his advisers; he resists all tutelage."
Geez, you could say the same thing about any despot in the history of infamy.
5
Sure, normally cabinet members are not meant to "check" the president.
Normally, the president isn't a toddler.
4
This is a joke, right?
Look, last week I read your op-ed on economic nationalism, and actually considered what you wrote because we do, indeed, have an income inequality problem in this country and I will listen to any and all who want to rectify the situation.
But, Trump is a grifter, and he's unqualified for the office he holds. You apparently think intelligence, competence, integrity and experience are overrated, that none of it is necessary to run a country. Well, you're right. It works for Russia and every third world dictatorship on the planet.
But, we are not them, at least not until now. Trump was elected because the electorate are clueless, just like him. It's the responsibility of any decent person left in our government to keep him from destroying everything this country stands for.
6
This is a remarkable op-ed. I have read few, if any like it.
In a sense, of course, Mr. McCarthy is correct. The President is the executive of the nation. His job is to faithfully execute the laws of the United States.
And this is where Mr. McCarthy and I begin to disagree. You see, Mr. Trump is a living stress of the Constitution. For example, heretofore, we worked off the collective assumption, that Americans would elect (without foreign interference), a competent, ethical executive loyal first and foremost the Constitution of the United States.
Setting aside the fact that Mr. Trump has only a vague familiarity with the Constitution, he is remarkably incompetent as has been amply documented. That is not me saying it, that is former Secretary of State Tillerson, Chief of Staff John Kelly (4 star Marine General), General McMaster, and legions of others. These are not lightweights. These are men Trump himself selected.
The reality is that these men have seen Trump "off camera" and they are horrified. According to Mr. McCarthy, these men should abandon their oaths to the Constitution, and simply act on the whims of the "Great Leader."
Unfortunately, for Mr. McCarthy, that is not how we do it in this country. Given the fact that Trump has no experience in government, it is essential that his advisors actually advise him. Trump actually would not be staring at impeachment if he had been informed he was breaking the law. No?
I am going to save this op-ed.
14
Trump was not elected - he slipped in under an antiquated provision giving low-population agricultural slave states a couple of extra electoral college votes - each.
Trump lost by roughly 3 million votes in a country of about 300 million.
Think of that - not only did a much larger percentage of those who voted choose Clinton, but 1% of the American public, including millions just too young to vote, chose Hillary Clinton the better candidate.
If I had lost a race by such numbers, I would have fone the ethical thing and withdrawn, ordering electors pledged to me to cast no ballot.
But Trump won nothing, except proof he has absolutely no ethics, no morals, no realistic concept of right and wrong - beyond ‘winning is not just an important thing, it’s the only thing”.
Never claim Trump ‘won’ the election, or has any kind of mandate from the ‘people’.
4
I would love to respond to the main point of Mr. McCarthy's commentary if I, or he, knew what that was.
3
In the case of Trump, it should be obvious by now that "controlling him" and "keeping him in check" are the most important jobs of his administration. He can't control himself as evidenced by his endless Twitter tirades and his propensity to blather out any old thing, regardless of its truth or consequences. It is impossible to overstate the damage he can do to this country and the world at large.
Oh, and as for "respecting" the election results -- those results, and how they came to be, are still an open question.
4
I think when the dust settles from this earthquake of an administration we will have learned that Mr. Trump was, indeed, a Manchurian candidate, installing as Secretary of State Mr. Tillerson because he met with Mr. Putin’s approval. How much deeper the Russian influence penetrated remains to be seen. I suspect that Mr. Trump’s financial dependence on Russian money will be the undoing of his presidency.
8
A great eulogy for the tyranny of the majority.
1
The president has surrounded himself with yes men so that when things go horribly wrong, as they will, he will excuse himself on the grounds that he was following the counsel of his advisors.
3
Feels like a bit of a straw man. The objections are not because the advisors are in general agreement with President Trump’s views. It’s that the appointees don’t have the experience to qualify them for making policy decisions for the country.
But even given the premise, why have advisors at all if you aren’t seeking advice? No one knows everything—especially to the extent necessary to run a country.
6
I hope that all presidents, even wise ones that I agree with, encourage dissenting opinions and have the capacity to hear them. Complex decisions do not benefit by being made in an echo chamber, particularly when the first sound is made by someone so illiterate in policy.
4
Any and every expectation from this Presidency has become moot. When there are no expectation even the chaos seem calm. The new mantra is - it cannot get worse! But that too takes a dive. If promises were made, they were lies. Aiding this President or baby-sitting him is not serving the country. Bringing him down would.
3
"Two years ago, majorities of voters in a majority of states chose to put Donald Trump in the White House ..."
Here is the fundament flaw in Mr. McCarthy's argument - a majority of American voters did NOT vote for Mr. Trunp. He was elected by the Electoral College. His views did not represent the majority of Americans who voted then, and I dare say, the majority of Amerian voters now. To claim Mr. Trump has *ever* represented the views of a majority of American voters is pure fantasy.
4
Why exactly are fears misplaced, when faced with the tweets and actions, or inactions of Trump in the last year? Churn and persistent denegration is supposed to breed confidence?
3
The presidency has always been associated with a sane individual who can draw on his thoughts and manage his feelings. DT has clearly demonstrated his inability to comport himself in a rational manner. He is nothing but rampant impulses vying for power. The more Trump is managed while in office, the safer for the world.
5
I appreciate the Times giving space to authors like this. Otherwise those of us who don't follow Fox and CNBC might not know what wacky ideas are floating around out there.
13
The argument in this piece is shocking, amoral and worthy of condemnation ... I condemn it.
7
So let me get this straight: sycophants are the only people we should have in our government.
8
I can only shake my head after reading this work of revisionist fiction. The number of realities you have to reject to place the author's premise on any reasonable foundation is remarkable.
I have not forgotten that Trump may very well be an illegitimate President due to collusion with foreign interference in our election. If not, he is certainly uniquely unqualified and is dangerously lacking in any metric you choose to gauge an individual's competence to hold our highest office.
Should cabinet members and congress be keeping a watchful eye on this fake president? Absolutely.
At best Trump will be our worst President ever. I go cold thinking of how much worse it could be if his full idiotic force is unleashed and unrestrained.
10
There are three things that make Trump unique as a president: he's pathologically irrational and dishonest combined with which he's one of our most ignorant if not the most ignorant of our presidents. He needs to be managed to avoid doing severe damage to our country and to the people of America and the world.
6
Nonsense. This assumes that Trump is informed and thoughtful and interested in the public good. None of that is true. A narcissistic demagogue does not get the same latitude as a decent person
11
If you don’t bow and kiss his shoes your out of a job.
If you have talent and political experience your out of a job.
If you are a person with a brain you are out of job.
If you don’t cheat on your spouse you are out of job.
Lots of positions available!
5
Great theory! But when you’re dealing with Nero, you don’t fiddle around with sycophants and yes men.
5
It's a pity reality gets in the way of Mr. McCarthy's claims.
Neither Kudlow nor Bolton have relationships with Trump, unless you count talking on Fox News as a relationship.
Kudlow, who has clear disagreements on trade with Trump, is not sympatico with Trump's professed tariffs.
Bolton, has also differed with Trump on the Iraq War (Bolton was for it, Trump has pretended it was opposed) and has differed with Trump on Russia (opposing making nice with Russia over their actions in Syria).
It's almost cute the way McCarthy also pretends that trump "resists all tutelage." That must explain why he backed down on gun control after the NRA visited him, backed down on China after meeting Xi, blew up a bipartisan DACA fix after Kelly and Miller got to him. There are countless examples of Trump taking advice. And there are countless examples of Trump's craven need for the advice and approval of elites--that's why he watches Fox, why he constantly calls people for their input, does what he can to suck up to the media.
In reality he was elected by a minority to pretend that he could govern on his own.
4
But he wasn't elected. He was put in office by Putin. His is an air quotes administration and presidency.
5
This is also the fundamental flaw with the electoral college. A majority of the voters voted by a 3M vote margin for Hillary Clinton and instead the electoral college magnifying the vote of more rural, older, whiter, less educated, and male, voters selected an incompetent reality television clown who has been laundering money for the Russian mafia for the last 20 years and whose family and closest advisers have been caught red handed soliciting assistance during the campaign from the Russian spy services.
6
If we compare President Eisenhower to President Bone Spurs we are struck by the difference between an organizer and a narcissist. The genius of Eisenhower as a General and a President was that he understood the skillful management of a staff. Ike understood that he was at the top of a pyramid. He did not run the Government of the United States like a college bull session. He was fussy about intelligence and I have yet to find anything in my reading about his administration that anyone found it necessary to dumb down his briefings. He had a healthy skepticism about information from the CIA. Ike was a grown-up who made up in scholarship what he lacked in charisma. He was fussy about facts and it annoyed him when the military-industrial complex dreamed up the "missile gap" so that we would spend money we didn't have to counter a threat that didn't exist. The Far Right of the time including old Pappy Koch didn't think Ike was tough enough on the Russians. I wish they could see us now.
126
"I don't need advisors," said the President. "When I need to hear the unvarnished truth, I ask myself. Then I answer myself. Everybody sitting around those big oval tables? They're just blowing off hot air and trying to keep up with my thinking. But I'm too fast, you know, just way to fast and strong in the brain department."
3
It is a disservice to Americans to say Trump was elected. Trump was not elected. He was placed in office by Republican gerrymandering and voter suppression coupled with Russian hacking in key states. They were systematically able to overcome the serious flaws in the antiquated Electoral College and put Trump in the Oval Office with thin margin 70K votes spread over Wis., Penn. and Ohio.. Trump lost the popular vote by a yuuuuge margin of 3 million. He is not our president.
5
“Two years ago, majorities of voters in a majority of states chose to put Donald Trump in the White House...”
This false. Trump won more electoral college votes. Not the voters.
5
We did not choose Trump to be President. Hillary Clinton won the office by 3,000,000 votes despite Russian meddling. It is actually possible that voter registration rolls were tampered with. We won't know until all of the investigations are finished. That is, if the criminal in the White House allows the investigations to be finished.
6
Trump was also elected without Ivanka and Jared.
Why do we have to accept his completely unqualified kids in the White house?
This whole column is flawed.
It assumes there is a thought process behind Trump's words and actions.
There is none.
There is only ego and gut reaction.
And neither of those is anyway to lead the country.
4
"I alone can fix it", Trump's audacious, egocentric words uttered at the Republican National Convention, certainly is the guiding centerpiece of this vastly misguided and inaccurate assessment of successful Presidential decision making. Whether in charge of the Executive Branch of our vast federal government or the C.E.O. of a small community bank, those leaders who do not act in a collaborative, deliberative, respectful and, at times, humble manner are doomed to failure.
The nation has already suffered negative consequences from this uninformed, incurious, impetuous, and ignorant narcissistic President's haphazard, ad hoc policies. For the writer to endorse this "chaotic theory" of governing is not only to abandon reality, but is downright dangerous. The sweeping assertions expressed therein are as empty and unstudied as the mind of the person who is the subject of this piece of sheer hero worship.
5
Our greatest president, Abraham Lincoln, understood the value of a "team of rivals", and of putting the good of country before any other value. Trump's vision is 'team of incompetent syncophants" who will prioritize his reelection and ego over national security, sovereignty, and the Constitution. The nonsense spewed in this column is indicative of the extent to which the GOP has lost any sense of what this country and its democracy have traditionally stood for, but which we are in grave danger of losing.
2
A president is elected to serve ALL of the people. A president should not need non-stop ego stroking to affirm his residence at The White House. This country elects its leader on the basis of states won, not on the majority vote, not on majorities in a majority of states. Regardless of your feelings, the president is supposed to be the president of all the people.
Making a lot of money is not a qualification to be the present, not a qualification to be the leader of the free world.
I would hope in the remaining days of his term, the president stops the chaos; approaches governing and leadership as a statesman. We all need a break. The world needs a break.
The man who arrived in Washington pledging to drain the swamp has converted it to a toxic waste dump.
Listen to smart people, not only those who agree with you; not only with your real estate buddies and conspiracy theorists. And please do not make decisions based only on the last voice you heard.
As a nation, we deserve better.
2
Just wondering how many times you had to re-write the phrase "majorities of voters in a majority of states chose to put Donald Trump...?" Really takes some choice words to imply that the majority of Americans voted for him. The obvious sentence would be "Although the majority of Americans voted against Donald Trump..." but that would have sounded like most people voted against him. Wait .. they did!
4
His business history is littered with the results of his endless scams.... The American people are now his business partners and the damage this time will belong to all of us.... welcome to Trump University. Our Allies now can no longer trust us.... and our enemies see us as easily manipulated. The only people that don't see criticism from this president are Autocrats ...Putin, Duterte, Erdogon....
I'm really curious what Putin has on this guy. Unfortunately Sessions, Rosenstein, and Mueller are soon to be history as well....
1
It's because the President is uniquely, horrifyingly Donald J. Trump.
This is our first, and one would hope our last, President who DOES need to be controlled, manipulated, stopped, confounded, fought, resisted and -- YES -- disrespected.
2
McCarthy’s line “He can govern, and we can live without policy elites” belies not only an ignorance in government but also a lack of humanity.
Sure, I, McCarthy, and most of the readership of the NYT will survive this debacle, diminished only in our belief that America deserves a leadership role in the world. But millions of Americans depend on the wise and compassionate choices of our government leaders for their day to day survival. The profound ignorance of DeVos, Carson, Pruitt, and the President himself put them at risk everyday they remain in office.
3
The author makes valid arguments for the wrong presidency. trump is not the 45th of the House of Free. He is the first of the House of Clown. He is unfit to serve because incompetent, corrupt and possibly treasonous. He is uninterested in the institutions, rules and traditions of democracy, which he perceives as a check on his power. He is an existential threat to the survival of democracy in this country. What we expect from the members of the Cabinet is an invocation of the 25th Amendment, not "help in implementing the president's policies".
3
All I care about is whether there is one person in that place that will physically stop him from pushing the big button.
2
Mr McCarthy's argument, condensed to "let Trump be Trump", gathers the spoils of a free democracy and offers the triumph of the totalitarian. I understand the rule of a single executive to direct, consider and decide the policies of the nation but I strongly, and firmly reject Mr McCathy's call that we must bend to the ruler we elect. True, anyone in this democracy can be president by free election. It is also true that we can question our leaders and reject them when they fail the public norms, are blind to our common humanity and believe each slight associated thought means they are a god.
"“It is therefore of supreme importance that we consent to live not for ourselves but for others. When we do this we will be able first of all to face and accept our own limitations. As long as we secretly adore ourselves, our own deficiencies will remain to torture us with an apparent defilement. But if we live for others, we will gradually discover that none expects us to be 'as gods'. We will see that we are human, like everyone else, that we all have weaknesses and deficiencies, and that these limitations of ours play a most important part in all our lives. It is because of them that we need others and others need us. We are not all weak in the same spots, and so we supplement and complete one another, each one making up in himself for the lack in another.”
― Thomas Merton, No Man Is an Island
What is supposed to be a check on the President is the Congress, which is supposed to be an equal part of the government. But the party-first crowd of nasty cowards in the Congress have abdicated their right to have a voice in the government, starting with the worst of them, Lyin Ryan who refuses to send any real legislation up to the White House to Ben signed or vetoed, but allows the entire legislative process to be stymied by the tweet -du-jour from a guy who makes poorer decisions than a magic eightball. Trumpsky said he would sign whatever bill the Congress sent him, then torpedoed any action with a series of incoherent tweets. The public needs to tell Ryan if he doesn’t intend to use Congress, we would like it back.
3
The BIG secret that those inside know, but don't often talk about is that we do not have a "normal" president in any sense of the word. He's a volatile, mentally unstable, extreme narcissist. You cannot have such a person dealing with nuclear weapons without having those around him to act as checks and be willing to say "No!" Instead, what narcissists need is constant praise, admiration, and unequivocal "loyalty." When they don't get it, they throw tweet tantrums castigating and humiliating those trying to help him, and follow it up with the infamous and often cruelly delivered, "You're fired!" as we saw recently with Rex Tillerson. We keep on hearing that we shouldn't "normalize" Donald Trump, but that's what this column does. That's what Congress does. That's what the media does with code word s like "childish." And that's what the mental health profession [Disclosure: I'm a retired professor of psychology] has done with it's adherence to the Goldwater rule. Meanwhile, an increasing erratic and unstable president is surrounding himself with "Yes" men and the nation and the world can only tremble at the potential catastrophes this might unleash as the major institutions fear to confront that there is an ill man in The Oval Office.
4
Daniel McCarthy is dead wrong. A majority of the people in a majority of the states DID NOT elect Donald Trump President. The people voted for corrupt, partisan, and incompetent ELECTORS who failed to meet their constitutional obligation and allowed a dangerously unsuitable man to ascend to the presidency. The Electoral College is the founders' check on exactly the kind of predicament we are in now.
6
Being a partisan is no excuse for justifying Trump's reckless and undemocratic behavior.
You can make whatever argument you like about how elections have consequences. Breaking the law has consequences.
Trump's total disrespect for the law and democratic norms -- from self-dealing to collusion with foreign powers to hiring corrupt officials -- will eventually lead to his downfall. It cannot happen soon enough for me.
3
Really, is this the best the conservatives can muster? Fundamentally wrong, in so many ways. Primarily this: the author argues that "Trump was elected to govern without these people." Prima facie wrong - he was elected to "drain the swamp," his second-favorite tagline. That doesn't imply a vacuum; government is not a one-man job. It means that his supporters expected a Cabinet free of self-interest. But what do we have instead? A Cabinet that's like the first people in line on Black Thursday, racing through democracy's store to entertain themselves, pad their resumes, and line their pockets. Disgusting.
167
He did NOT win a majority of the popular vote in the last presidential election.
And he has NO idea how to govern... only to be the star in his reality TV show.
4
Well Mr. McCarthy. You make a number of points. I am not sure I agree with any of them. Where to begin?
The villains, the bad guys in your piece. The so-called elite." These are:
What we used to call "eggheads." ivory tower types. People like Mr. Obama, inquiring about the price of arugula (what is it? how do you say it?)
Years ago, we called them "the wise men." Well-educated Often (not always) products of Harvard or Yale. These people had certain beastly advantages. For example. . . .
. .. THE ABILITY TO LISTEN TO OTHER PEOPLE.
To weigh--thoughtfully and seriously--varying viewpoints. To listen to the other guy. To consider--appraise--assess the likely consequences--ALL the likely consequences--of an action or a policy. Plus of course. . . .
. .. THE ABILITY TO THINK BEFORE YOU OPEN YOUR MOUTH.
I am not suggesting, Mr. McCarthy, that ordinary, non-elite people are destitute of these virtues. But they ARE virtues associated (more or less) with the "elite" you view with such evident scorn and mistrust.
Not longer ago, I got on YouTube and listened to a Trump rally.
Horrifying!
I would suggest (turning your own panegyric upside down) that our President almost ALWAYS "plays to his base." His inner demagogue--and yes! that IS the word i would use--requires him to do no less. Give the fans red meat. Keep 'em happy. Keep 'em satisfied.
'Cause in the last analysis--those are the friends he's gonna have.
The ONLY friends.
4
Two things;
1.All of this drivel assumes we have an actual president with a brain, morals, and the ability to actually think or try do his job by at least reading.
2. To quote," Donald J. Trump. His great virtue is that he cannot be molded by his advisers; he resists all tutelage. He was elected because the people who do the molding in our politics have for too long led our country down a path of destruction, under Republicans and Democrats alike. The advice they give, sound in theory, is terrible in practice. One service President Trump has performed that even many of his detractors should applaud is to demolish the mystique of the policy elite. He can govern, and we can live, without them." This is one of the most nauseating paragraphs I have read yet. Trump does't understand policy, government, law, morals and exhibits a total lack of any training in how to think critically, make decisions or lead. He, like the author of this article, is delusional.
3
The argument in this piece is basically valid, except that the balance of power is out of whack in America. It has shifted far too much towards the president.
This partly because the Congress is so dsyfunctional, which in turn has much to do with the corrupt and decrepit two-party duopoly that is wrecking American politics.
Thus, in the absence of proper legislative reform, indeed of any well-functioning national legislature at all, we are left with courts, the press and the cabinet members as main remaining sources of restraint on by far the most incompetent and dangerous US president of all time.
2
Its nice to give the Presidents supporters a chance to make their case.... It always helps to further justify my opposition to this President. I love the conclusion that he was elected because we were going down a path to destruction?!?! Yikes.
1
While many changes are likely, as they were in other administrations, the real culprit here, has to do with the mainstream press. The dangerous ability of this paper, for example, to create news and impressions of our leaders, is unprecedented. The very notion that President Trump possesses, as you write, "wildest impulses" is a fabrication of this paper and others like it. I can't recall editorials ever mentioning Mr. Obama's lethargic tendencies. This paper is an impediment to the public understanding the truth about our leaders.
1
The left still cannot accept that Donald Trump won the Presidency on the merits of his campaign. Whether those positions are good, bad, or ugly is open for debate...but to entirely dismiss the decision made by the voters, and insist that an outside force is responsible for his victory is frankly insulting and arrogant. That mentality follows the same sort of blind reasoning that led the press, media and the Clinton campaign to declare victory for Hillary before the first ballot was even cast.
Even after 3 years, and plenty of evidence to the contrary, Trump's actions are still being filtered through the prism of how a standard politician would behave. When will people learn? Could we perhaps have one day not devoted to re-litigating the 2016 election? The sky is not falling.
Trump was not elected because he is an economic nationalist. He was elected due to the fact that he reflected his supporters’ ugliness back to them, and they approved.
3
No one disputes that the job of the President's cabinet is to carry out the the lawful directives and offer advice to the chief executive. That's a given. But when you have a President who prides himself on the 'knowledge' that he acquires by watching cable-TV talk shows and eschews facts, official reports, and reading in general, the composition of the cabinet becomes critical. It would be one thing if the President's positions were grounded in thoughtful study, consideration of consequences, and dutiful preparation. But when you have a clown for a leader who says one thing and then 5 minutes later says the opposite (on things like DREAMers, guns, North Korea), how can one be confident that these policy positions make sense?
Let's not forget that more people voted for Trump's opponent in the last election - another simple fact that he can't seem to grasp - so implying that he has some kind of mandate to lead by saying stuff like the majority of people in the majority of states voted for him is just plain silly.
161
"[The latest policy advisors] spell the end of the Iran deal. And regarding North Korea or Syria, they might well mean war." - Oh great, we should be happy! And if only Mueller would go away, I suppose, Trump could bring about the end of the World unhampered!
2
Wow. Does it occur to this writer at all that almost all of Trump's initial picks were people with acute deficits in understanding either how government works or the substance of the fields in which they were chosen to serve? Though the Republican congress rubber stamped Mr. Trump's nominees for the most part, even many members of that group knew very well those candidates' weaknesses.
The idea that Trump has better people in his pocket to choose from is laughable.
The one thing McCarthy gets right is that Trump "resists all tutelage;" he began as a brash liar and nothing has changed that.
3
Mr McCarthy's comments fail to recognize one rather important fact. MOST people who achieve high office in large organizations have demonstrated the ability to control themselves -- emotionally, intellectually, behaviorally -- as a part of their ascension into power.
Due to a failure of our electorate's ability to think clearly, Trump became President without the ability to manage his own emotions, his thoughts or his actions. He is sexually, intellectually, morally, intentionally and inter-personally incontinent. Thus, he needs to be controlled by others.
Most successful leaders recognize their own limitations and deliberately compensate for them. The invite others to leadership who have whatever skills they lack. Trump, lacking insight of all sorts, celebrates his impulsive tendencies. His search for similarly impulsive folks with crazy theories further facilitates our nation's peril. Sad.
1
"Two years ago, majorities of voters in a majority of states chose to put Donald Trump in the White House" WRONG! Our antiquated, absurdly non-democratic electoral college chose to put Donald Trump in the white house. The majority of people chose to reject him.
3
It's not that "he" Trump "resists all tutelage" but rather that he resists all facts or opinions that do not align 100% with his own.
1
Trump doesn't even have policies, he has momentary impulses and enthusiasms, he has prejudices and desires. And Cabinet members and other high-level staff are not meant to be sycophants brown-nosing a tin-pot dictator, though that is clearly Trump's view of how government works. When the President is thus undermining the foundations of our government, having a few people who don't go along seems like a pretty good idea.
2
"Two years ago, majorities of voters in a majority of states chose to put Donald Trump in the White House"? This is a bald-faced lie that Trumpsters and their ilk promulgate to negate the actual fact that the majority of voters favored Hillary Clinton and her policies. And remember your history lessons: Cabinet members were intended to advise the President, not rubberstamp his dangerous views.
4
No one is second guessing that Trump lost the popular vote by over 3 million votes, expect maybe Trump himself.
1
I guess McCarthy forgot about that little oath that all these people take to defend the Constitution and protect the country from enemies, both foreign & domestic. McCarthy also seems to forget that we are a republic, not a monarchy where one man gets to hold all the power. Of course, the Congress has abdicated their part in checks & balances, so no wonder IQ45 feels "released." Unfortunately, the American public will be the victims of these warmongers and thugs.
2
Mr. McCarthy makes a fatal logical error in his argument–he is assuming that this President is informed, qualified, and capable of making reasoned decisions. Clearly he is quite the opposite: proudly ill-informed, unqualified, and capable of making decisions based solely on the minute-by-minute status of his delicate ego.
We must keep reminding ourselves: This Presidency is Not Normal.
2
Prexy plus a team of sycophants is most certainly not what we need. It's simply a recipe for disaster.
2
If Trump were a qualified skydiving instructor, would you take a lesson from him? Me neither, because a fundamental trait of such a person is integrity. Putting our country in his hands as president is no different. A sane nation would have passed.
1
It all make s sense if you ignore the substance of Donald Trump. I don't know exactly what the minority of people who voted for him expected. But in substance Mr Trump is a mendacious, cruel, vengeful, bragger with no interest in learning about his job. None of these faults will be mitigated by surrounding himself with a like minded staff, and of similar temperament.
Trump's direction to his staff is not the product of due diligence by a thoughtful person. Anger and revenge seem to be key ingredients. I think that we all have a right to expect that those surrounding this president make it their patriotic duty to prevent him from doing serious damage, especially starting a war. Sure, the Electoral College has spoken, but in a dialect few Americans understand.
153
Good grief. This writer clearly misses the wisdom of three equal branches of government with each a check on the others. Trump is atypical head of executive branch. His ignorance, narcissism, arrogance, and temperament make him a threat to the republic as well as the world. He must be checked as he cannot be managed or controlled. The Coutsare doing their best to uphold the Constitution, but the Congress is derelict in their duties . November elections may be our last hope.
3
Mr. Trump, a manifestly mentally disturbed and unfit candidate, was elevated to the presidency by a combination of Russian interference, James Comey's politicization of his FBI position, an electoral college fluke and supporters who are as simple-minded and unfit to vote as he is to occupy the office.
There is no rational way to normalize the Trump disaster unfolding on a daily basis. America is in crisis and the planet as a whole is threatened by the abomination that is the Trump administration, aided and abetted by the craven Republicans in the House and Senate. The sooner Trump and his jackals are expunged, the better. Rational people can only hope there is something left to salvage.
4
McCarthy writes pure fiction. It is precisely because of Trump's ineptness that Republicans have not been able to fully capitalize on controlling all of the political levers. As more of those enablers leave Trump, the harder it will be to replace them. Offering to have the NSC led by John Bolton, aka the Neo Con who still gets everything wrong about the Middle East? The CIA's Ms. Gina Haspel, as the previous director of American Torture, who ordered the illegal destruction of the CIA's torture videos---apparently Bush's sanctioned torture was semi-legal? If Bolton's previous nomination couldn't get approved, somehow this time it will? What is clear here is Trump is adding Pompeo to State, elevating Haspel to the CIA, and Bolton to the NSC is not war with North Korea, but clearly Iran. Apparently Mueller's doggedness is panicking Trump into creating a false war with Iran. Hopefully the SECDEF will scuttle those idiotic war plans.
3
If Trump had ever shown an iota of the intellect or even basic intelligence that seems to be the presumption on which this opinion piece is based, McCarthy's reasoning might be justified.
3
Donald Trump's intellectual deficits and lack of character are both an embarrassment to this country and an affront to reason generally. All the world can see this, and all the world - including the vast majority of Americans - will be happy to see his presidency in the rear view mirror. Well, maybe not Putin and Duterte and some other fell misanthropes.
Trump and his voters generally do not have my respect, nor do they deserve it.
3
This article makes a silly argument. Decision making processes are best served by a robust battle of ideas, not group think. Putting aside the present incumbent, no head of state should be surrounded by yes people.
2
The true foundation of this op-ed is anti-intellectualism. They key phrase is "His great virtue is that he cannot be molded by his advisers; he resists all tutelage."
In one of the Republican primary debates Trump clearly did not know what the nuclear triad was. During the campaign he said without shame that the U.S. could just default on its debt. Within 48hrs he stopped saying it and never repeated it. No doubt one or more "experts" got to him and explained why no rational person would ever make such an absurd, imbecilic statement. Trump is a true ignoramus: his mind is a hodgepodge of pizza ads, beauty pageants, fake universities and bad steaks. Conservatives like Mr. McCarthy like him because they want to limit government's role to reducing taxes, deregulation and keeping wages low. Therefore they resent all analyses that point out the consequences of treating the middle and lower classes like subhuman drones. This racket has been going on since the beginning of the Republic.
Trump is in absolute desperate need of the deepest and most extensive tutelage. Instead, he thinks not knowing that The U.S. has a trade surplus with Canada is no big deal, even funny.
Mr. McCarthy's well-written but casuistic arguments are in line with the one's against evolution and climate change: pure nonsense.
1
Trump is mentally disorganized and, though the cabinet serves at his pleasure, he has no pleasure, no thought process. James Mattis knows how to keep his head down in combat, and is surviving. But there is nothing "upstairs" with Trump. We are in great danger as long as he's asleep at the switch. Don't make this about "the election". Elections don't guarantee a good outcome -- we see that now.
2
Trump betrays and debauches the Constitution every day with massive corruption and self-dealing and dragging his feet on protecting vital American interests, and attacking American institutions and experienced civil servants only to cover up his own misdeeds. Trump does not need minders, he must be forced out.
9
Their duty probably is to do what the fake "president" wants, that's not really the issue. What is the issue is that it's our job to make sure Trump loses control of congress and then the next election, as well as to make sure the investigation into his corruptions and crimes continues.
Who cares what his lackeys do or don't do.
2
Love watching a movie ending with a good chase.
Bolton and Kudloe: what more need be said? But cheer up: things could be (but not much) worse.
He didn't "run" on any policy specifics other than "Build a wall," "Ban muslims," and "lock her up." His supporters just wanted to watch the world burn.
5
Trump spends more time tweeting, watching TV and playing golf than trying to be a good leader. The rest of the time he's stuffing his face or lying!
6
I object to this writer who thinks Trump, a an evil and crazy oligarch, should be given free rain. What about the checks and balances that are part of the constitution and are what make our democracy strong, or at least have in the past. I am against war, especially as a means to avoid the consequences of finding out the full range of Trump's money laundering activities, racist policies and probable perversions . How can he support Trump's policy decisions? This is a president who would start a nuclear war it he thinks he could escape the truth.
5
Who needs advisors when we have a president who knows more than the generals about how to clean up Middle East wars? Who chillingly said at the Republican convention, "I alone can fix it" Who thinks he is a very stable genius? I could go on. Aren't these signs that we have a dangerously delusional man occupying the presidency? Policy matters aide, this guy is nuts, and he if anybody needs to be managed
2
As a longterm reader of the NYT, I continue to be amazed by the commentators who consider the election result wrong because of the Electoral College, or who claim the Russians elected Trump, and who continue to believe that Trump is simply dumb.
The claim that cabinet ministers owe allegiance to the Constitution, not to the President, is equally nonsensical. All cabinet ministers have always been appointed because the President believes they can administer their departments and execute policy the way he, the President, wants them administered and executed. What is different about that from prior Presidents?
Nothing at all.
27
The difference is that Obama appointed political rivals to high position so he could hear and debate with them over issues. Clinton and Biden are two examples. Another difference is that Obama appointed truly distinguished experts in their fields- people who had spent their entire lives dealing with critical issues- his Sec of Energy was a Noble Prize winner. Third on difficult questions Obama got results- the Ebola pandemic is one example- what would Dismal Donnie have done; getting Bin Laden was another; and finally overseeing the national economic recovery from the worst recession in American history. From all indications Trump's policies are leading to another crash.
11
An individual, except the President, elected or appointed to an office of honor or profit in the civil service or uniformed services, shall take an oath to support and defend the Constitution.
3
FYI
The Oath Of Office For Most Other Federal Officials, Other Than The President (including the Vice President, Cabinet members, members of Congress, Presidential civilian appointees, military officers, and civil servants)
. . . as outlined in the Constitution and specified in the United States Code, 5USC3331.
"I, AB, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God."
5
Fortunately a check on this administration should come in the fall with a Democratic House. Hopefully that happens and happens in time.
4
As others have already noted, this piece has twisted history, ethics and semantics into so many knots it can't be taken seriously, even by those of us who are willing to give Trump apologists the opportunity to be persuasive. Still, I find the following so outrageous I have to note it: "That President Trump wants his staff to help him carry out his commitments is an act of good faith..." This brief assertion has so many demonstrably wrong ideas as to defy credibility. Firstly, when has Trump ever in his life asked for or demonstrated interest in receiving others' help with anything? Only losers need help, Mr. McCarthy! Secondly, when has the thrice-married Trump ever demonstrated the slightest interest in honoring or being bound by his "commitments"? And finally, and most obviously, when has Trump EVER acted in "good faith"?
Save your apologia for someone who merits them, Mr. McCarthy.
2
This is not just a dangerous view of democratic governance, but a profoundly stupid view of leadership in general. No head of a complex organization knows everything necessary to achieve the best overall outcomes. No one. All CEOs, university presidents, etc. have teams of subject and area experts to advise them, and while each expert may have blind spots or biases, it would be insane not to at least consider their objections to a course of action. The fact that a leader was elected (by whatever means) has no bearing on that fact.
2
Sorry Mr. McCarthy, I beg to differ with you. Trump was elected because of the outdated Electoral College...and Russian interference.
3
"Cabinet members and executive-branch officials are not supposed to be a check on the president; they serve at his pleasure, after all. Their duty is to assist him, their oars all pulling in the direction set by the captain." Seriously? There is nothing more destructive than unthinkingly loyal positive feedback loops on any managerial system. And isn't our entire governmental system based on checks and balances?
3
What an absurd premise. 45 is the most inexperienced and least qualified candidate, let alone president, in history. He has already admitted in televised interviews to obstruction of justice and he violates the emoluments clause of the Constitution every single day multiple times. The Mueller investigation continues and, unlike the GOP "investigation," it will be over when it's over. He requires supervision to dress himself. He and his "team" are a grave threat to both democracy and the planet.
3
He needs to be removed immediately. Either via the 25th Amendment or through impeachment. He is mentally incapacitated. He has repeatedly violated the Emoluments clause. He has conspired with a hostile foreign power to subvert our democratic elections and he has obstructed justice. These are not opinions. These are facts.
5
This is some misguided guidance on how to approach a loose cannon like Donald Trump. To equate George W. Bush's supposed acquiescence to his staff when pushing for war in Iraq, with a desire to have people with an education advise Donald Trump on simply getting along with the world around him is nonsense. For all Mr. McCarthy knows, Bush may have wanted the Iraq war as much as his underlings did. Trump is unfit, period. Any checks on him from staff looking to avert war and economic chaos is laudable.
And, no, he Trump did not win a majority of voters, no matter how carefully Mr. McCarthy couches it in terms of number of states in gerrymandered districts.
3
This opinion piece is intentionally misleading. Donald Trump also swore during his campaign that he would surround himself by experts, certainly IMPLYING that he would listen to experts. He has done nothing of the kind. Most of the people who surround him are uninformed sycophants. The author says that we ought not to complain that he surrounds himself with people who agree with him but the truth is, no other president has entered the office both so uninformed AND so unwilling to listen to experts. I have read many times quotes from Trump voters who said that they did not mind his lack of government experience because he said he would hire the best advisers. His failure to do this is a betrayal to his voters and to the country.
228
You presume Trump has a grasp of the issues, he does not. You assume he's sane, that's up for debate. What is known is that he wants to be surrounded by sycophants. That's not democracy, that's dictatorship.
5
By blurring the meaning of “elite” and thus making “policy elite” a bludgeon - as Republicans long have done with the word “liberal” - Mr. McCarthy helps to obscure the truth that no president - not even Donald Trump - is so knowledgable about the issues and expert at public policy as to be able to “govern” by dint of his or her own genius. That means not only that the highest-level aides should speak their minds but, just as importantly, that the president must make decisions with respect for their superior expertise. In other words, we EXPECT the Cabinet heads to be wiser, each within his or her bailiwick. (Of course, that depends on a president’s capability in choosing staff.) We know that while Trump (formerly head of a mom-and-pop shop, albeit sans mom) gets off on having underlings swirling about, he brooks no input on his simplistic views. Nor is it fair to cite Bush 2, who at best was the opposite, giving free reign to the neoconservative cabal without being a true “decider.”
Mr. McCarthy puts soft spin on Donald Trump’s apparent approach to “governing” by calling him “an economic nationalist” who "campaigned on a foreign policy that would be neither as fecklessly grandiose as Mr. Bush’s nor as hemmed in by humanitarian concerns as Barack Obama’s.” The fact is that Trump campaigned on buzz phrases and a few simplistic (and largely outdated) “policy” ideas that reflected his decided LACK of genius. And he didn’t take his earplugs out on January 20 of last year.
3
This essay ends with "He can govern, and we can live, without [the policy elites]." Trump does not govern. He's a Pavlovian sack of conditioned reflexes, with the trainers working for right wing propaganda organs.
3
What an annoying read. Delivered in the wide-eyed yet patronizing style of a beauty pageant speech, its, like, we're supposed to agree with the absurd underlying assumptions just because she's so earnest. So I'm supposed to accept that previous "elite" (i.e. experienced and knowlegable) advisors were leading us down a "path to destruction"...hm, seems like the most destructive forces threatening our future are: war, climate change, racism, income inequality, lack of access to health care and education, and authoritarianism...all the things that Trump makes worse with his policies.
The way that conservative writers cloak their lies in homey banalities is galling. NYT, I get that you want to be even-handed and give all us liberals a chance to "listen to the other side", but every time I do, I come to the same conclusion: the conservative agenda is a hoax perpetrated by the actual elite (Billionaire exploiters like Trump and the Koch Bros) that harnesses unearned racial resentment among a demographic damaged by education-dismantling Republicans going back at least to Reagan. If my house is on fire, I want an experienced firefighter to put it out. That doesn't make the firefighter someone to be mocked for being elite. Same with a doctor if I'm sick...policy making and politics is a job, and I want someone who is good at it.
4
Laughed then almost cried at this view. Trump cannot govern, and has done far more damage to our country, in one year, than any other administration in decades.
4
"He can govern, and we can live, without them."
Can we? That's a great leap of faith with Trump turning away America's friends and allies, while bragging about the size of his nuclear button. I guess your assertion is a safe one, since few of us will be around to call you to account if you are too far wrong. The collective wisdom of experienced, knowledgeable policy experts, and Presidents who have listened carefully to them, has kept us out of nuclear war and prevented another Great Depression for the better part of a century, with some close calls. That's not an achievement to mock and pretend that you and a man as ignorant as Donald Trump know better, simply because the Electoral College, with some help from Putin, made Trump President.
1
It is a cardinal virtue of strong and wise leaders that they seek out the most informative voices available, whether or not those voices agree them. Then, as leaders, it is still their responsibility to make decisions, but they make those decisions based on consideration of multiple voices.
A weak and foolish leader creates an echo chamber to tell him that whatever he thinks is the answer *is* the correct answer.
This isn't about being controlled. It's about being informed and making smart decisions.
Trump has always lived in an echo chamber populated by sycophants. Now he is recreating that echo chamber in the White House. And we'll all suffer because of it.
254
The "people" did not elect Trump. As the author carefully parses, "a majority of people in a majority of states" did. The fact is that a majority of people in the United States voted against Trump and disdain him and his agenda. So, the people of the United States bridle at his chaotic administration and resist him. Good. Let him continue to surround himself with Fox News toadies who are loyal to him but not to their oath. It will only build the resistance that will sweep them to well deserved historical ignominy.
1
Imbecility. The point about Trump is not that he needs advisors who share his principles, it is that he has none. It isn't democracy we fear, it is ignorance and prejudice.
1
"He resists all tutelage." "He cannot be molded." Are you kidding? Trump's voracious habit of watching Fox News shapes his every decision. He has chosen Fox News to be his tutor, to mold his every thought, and, now, choose his personnel. Mr. McCarthy is swollen with the swills of a single-minded authority. He would have an American God, in the flesh of Trump, worshipped at all times, and never questioned. As having given advice and taken the same, I am confident that this Congress and Constitution was not built on that elitist policy either.
2
I don't disagree with much of this. But rather I view this as a structural problem in our constitutional system.
What should be done when a maniac is elected? You don't answer other than to say that a maniac should appoint his own hired guns.
I think you underestimate the danger. To some degree, we have the constitutional crisis of democracy you fear: Gen. John Hyten, US Strategic Command, said if ordered to launch a nuclear strike said he would disobey an illegal order. Thus, we have our military checking the president!
I don't view this as a conservative/liberal issue, rather a problem of what do you do in our democracy when an unstable president assumes power. Much of the Republican leadership have indicated they will just push their own agenda and call him a lunatic behind closed doors (although many outside government are appalled). Democrats are crying fire but are out of power. Trump supporters hate the elite so much (as you allude) that they can't see past their noses.
The damage will be long and lasting. (And no man is an Island, even if Trump had good ideas.)
1
The thesis of this essay, that a president who is duly elected is the head of his administration and sets its course, would seem self-evident, but I see from the NYT commentariat that it is not. Trump won. I'm not happy about it either, but that's life in the big city. Get over it, and get over yourselves. And vote for Bernie in 2020, please.
1
Yes, Donald Trump can run the government as he pleases---and what a disaster this will most likely be.
1
"He was elected because the people who do the molding in our politics have for too long led our country down a path of destruction, under Republicans and Democrats alike."
Republicans: Watergate, 1/2 of Vietnam, Iran-Contra, Panama, Iraq War, Financial near death experience.
Democrats: 1/2 of Vietnam, sexual harassment, what else you got?
Oh, and as to the general hypothesis of this op-ed, I have another, much simpler one. Maybe Trump, just gets tired of his advisers, like he does his wives. I mean, where is his "kitchen cabinet" of old, trusted friends? There is none because he has none.
2
This is utter nonsense. No one person, no matter how capable, can possibly know all the nuances and ramifications of economic policy, diplomacy, etc. etc.
This is why the constitution provides for a Cabinet appointed with the Advice and Consent of the Congress (also elected) to keep the President informed so that he can make decisions that are in the best interest of the country.
The problem with Trump's decision on tariff's is NOT whether or not it will work, BUT that it was apparently made without consulting his own advisors or knowing the facts about trade balances.
Perhaps Trump is used to bluffing when making business deals. BUT he has no business doing so when meeting with other heads of state. The bizarre exchange her reported with Trudeau was imply irresponsible and disrespectful.
247
Let's make it simple. The President swears an oath to work for Americans. His approval polls are in the tank. He was elected with 46% of the vote underwritten by 56% of the possible electorate. He doesn't need a free hand, he needs to be checked by any reasonable legal means. Mr. McCarthy is using an odd calculus of how a President should governed.
22
Don't forget that candidate Trump acknowledged his deficiencies in running a government but promised that all the best minds wanted to work for him and that was our reassurance. But of course the swamp didn't get trained, only deeper. And of course few qualified people want to be associated with him and of course they are asked to keep the pinky-swear loyalty pledge. They serve at his pleasure, you are correct. But hopefully they all get copies of section 4 of the 25th amendment.
10
The cabinet members do not have a duty to do the presidents bidding. Their job is to provide the president with facts and well informed opinions from which the president can determine the best actions for the people of the United States as he believes them to be. What president Trumps wants is a cabinet that finds the facts and opinions that best fit his ideological goals.
We've had this presidency before and it's name was Dick Cheney - Yes, the first six years he drove the ideology of the Oval office, only in the last two did Bush actually preside over the country. So as you argue and we have seen, a less forceful president can be manipulated by his advisors. But that doesn't mean a strong president should not be constrained by facts and informed opinions when ideology is in conflict with those facts.
7
The nerve of this man to refer to "majorities of voters in a majority of states." Does a 3-million vote difference in the popular vote ring a bell? Everyone now knows that gerrymandering has manipulated the outcomes of elections. The sitting president was chosen by less Americans than the other candidate was.
14
What path of destruction have the Democrats led the country down, Mr. McCarthy? Kindly take your blinders off.
Here are more than 500 citations worth your time to review:
http://pleasecutthecrap.com/obama-accomplishments/
19
"The alternative is that a self-chosen coterie of advisers, esteeming themselves wiser than the president and the people, set policy according to the preferences of their class." How is it that all the people departing the Trump administration were "self-chosen"? Trump chose them all!
"That the new administration’s first 15 months should be marked by rapid cycling through press secretaries and National Security Council staff and other advisers high and low is not surprising." Not surprising, no. Trump cycled through something like 8 CEOs in just a few years for his casinos in NJ. He is no paragon of management prowess. Worrying, however? Yes!
The writer suggests the past 15 months are just a break-in period, and expected for an outsider. My bet: We will continue to see a high degree of churn this year, and next. Which means the writer is just plain wrong.
16
The author is correct: the president does NOT need to be controlled. He needs to be removed. And quickly, if we are to save the democracy he is decimating at a dangerous pace.
55
Mr. McCarthy displays a typically American belief that all democracies function in the same manner as the American Republic. His sweeping generalizations betray his ignorance of comparative political science: "Democratic government is healthiest when the people understand that a leader they chose is of one mind with the colleagues that he chooses in turn...Even a little of such behavior can do grave damage to the idea of a representative republic." Mr. McCarthy obviously knows nothing about parliamentary democracy: their cabinets are comprised of political "personalities", high-ranking members of their party. They make collective decisions along with the prime minister. In majoritarian parliamentary systems (Britain, Canada, etc.), voters elect a team (e.g. Labour or the Tories), which then makes effective policy. Conversely, Germany, Israel, Belgium, etc., are all healthy representative republics, but they are characterized by multiparty, proportional electoral systems. They form coalition governments: cabinet seats are distributed to two or more parties, with differing ideologies and personalities. Voters entering a polling station cannot guarantee that their preferred party will be asked to join a coalition, and if they are, what policy compromises they will be forced to make. But German government is effective and democratic. Our presidential government has not exported well--look at Latin America. I wish our pundits and politicians knew how other democracies work.
7
McCarthy sure gets it wrong! It is about the constitution NOT the president who in this case seems not to care about the constitution. He may have the right to make appointments, good, bad and indifferent, but the president does have responsibilities to the country. Whether the administration becomes a. monolith or not is not the issue. His election was through the electoral college but does not represent the majority of voters.
Please tell me more about his "great virtue," please tell me. Also tell me about the advice of his new economic advisor who has been wrong morel times than the average weather forecaster.l
Yes, he can govern but I thought the constitution was about a three way split in responsibilities. What you are calling for something more like autocracy if not something worse. The real conclusion is we can live without him.
39
A little correction. Donald Trump became President per the Constitution. Three million voters kept him from being elected democratically. Additionally, there is nothing on the Republican/Trump agenda that the majority of Americans favor. Nothing. We are being ruled by a minority government with a minority agenda.
67
Being greedy, selfish, cruel, dumb, cowardly and a liar makes him king?
Who knew?
38
Cabinet members take an oath of office to defend the Constitution and they swear allegiance to the Constitution. They are appointed by the President and serve at his pleasure, but they are not his employees.
Despite Mr. Trump's wishes and expectation, they do not swear allegiance to the President or his policies.
In fact they have a duty to push back against policies that they consider wrong. The fact that so many have left Mr. Trump's administration, either by their choice or his, indicates the weakness of his understanding of his own duties and obligations.
Among the several reasons that he should be impeached and removed from office, the most important is his unwillingness (inability?) to recognize the common obligation of himself and his appointees to defend and protect the Constitution. No president in recent times, except RMN, had the expectation that his cabinet officers should place loyalty to him above loyalty to the Constitution.
55
"Policy differences have a proper place in an administration, but only before a decision is made."
How do you assert and defend a difference of policy opinion with an uninformed dilettante who believes 'policy' has something to do with home insurance? In the real world, largely populated by men and women with the intellect and acumen normally associated with high-level operatives, Mr. McCarthy's assertion makes sense. In the current morass, it does not.
7
When Truman became President, he understood that he was unprepared, but he did not act like he did, he just got to work and learned the job with the help of people who understood all the things which Presidents must understand. Reagan delegated to people who could do what he could not. The job of President is unique and even greatly experienced and highly informed people need help to become good at the job.
Then there is Donald Trump. He finds it all boring and he tries to feed his mind with predigested information on television rather than to try to understand the pure full bodied information from the sources in government. He continually reveals the limits of his understanding of nearly all issues about which he must deal besides his performances in front of audiences. He does not consider the secondary and tertiary consequences of his actions. Without carefully assistance that he will accept, he is a man at risk of falling into trouble just because he really does not understand much of what he must to do a reasonably adequate job.
28
The writer presents a frightening picture of a President who does not listen to reason. Within each of our branches of government are its own internal checks and balances. There are appellate courts, and two houses of Congress. While the President does have the last word in the Executive Branch, we have come to expect that the people in that branch will operate as a team, and we have come to expect that a President should listen to many different voices before making decisions. In other words, we have come to expect something other than an echo chamber. And we need something other than an echo chamber. Especially (but not exclusively) with this President, who has had no experience governing and little patience for the nuance sometimes needed to avoid catatrophe. Is the writer suggesting that if there is a nuclear conflagration that that was ok because in his biew that is what the votes wanted?
23
The relationship between a competent president and his advisers is far more complex than that suggested by Mr. McCarthy. While the Constitution confers the final decision-making power on the chief executive, a wise president will consider carefully the input of cabinet heads and other officials. The term, "adviser," used to describe these people, confirms that their role transcends that of "yes-man or woman."
No president enters office an expert on all the responsibilities and issues he will face. Hence the importance of surrounding himself with people competent in the areas included in their job descriptions. McCarthy rightly states that Trump spurns tutelage, but this refusal to learn on the job represents weakness, not strength. Given his total lack of experience in government, Trump needed far more help than most presidents.
That said, McCarthy correctly notes that advisers do not usually serve as checks on presidential behavior. In this case, however, a few of these people serve as the last line of defense against a man who has recklessly threatened North Korea with war; expressed support for the use of torture; used his office to enrich his family; and refused to order counter measures against Russian attacks on the integrity of our elections and the safety of our electrical grid.
The power of the vote does not include the removal of all restraints on a president manifestly unfit to hold high office.
18
But most Americans DIDN'T choose him. So, there's that.
51
He can govern? Republicans have not shown any interest in actually governing since Eisenhower and Trump is no exception. Their goal is to enrich the wealthy and loot the country. That's not governing. How on earth Mr. McCarthy does not see that we are hurtling on a path to destruction thanks to Trump can only be explained by the idea that somehow he thinks he will not only be immune from the consequences but will actually personally gain.
23
I disagree with the writer's conclusion that "He can govern". Where is the evidence that Trump can govern? He has not been able to put the WH in order, so, how can we accept your conclusion that he can govern?
38
I think its really that he "feel like" fe governs, but the man is too mercurial to actually govern. As to whether we can live with it, only time will tell.
5
The biggest difficulty in finding a cabinet that shares the President's purported values is that he does not always seem entirely clear himself on how those values translate into concrete policy. His policy positions seem to change depending on who he has talked to last, or seen most recently on television. I think many of his cabinet would have discussions with him, come out of them feeling that he understood what they said and agreed with them, and then later have him completely reverse himself (and the administration), based on a different advisor or a whim.
10
McCarthy is right to remind us that Trump is on a learning curve. President Kennedy said that 'nothing prepares you for the Presidency.' So, if experienced politicians are challenged, anyone with President Trump's lack of experience would be doubly so. The problem is the cost to the country of his education is too much. This job is too important.
16
The reason some writers are even thinking about cabinet members as checks on the president is because Congress is not a check. And in fact, the cabinet is now a check on the president according to the amended Constitution. For the cabinet and the leaders of Congress determine if the president is unfit to continue in office.
10
You mean the Republicans in Congress aren't a check. The Dems are a check, but unfortunately are the minority party.
I agree 100%, Trump does not need to be managed! As an imminent danger to our democracy, this man who consistently puts self-interest above country needs to be removed from the office of the Presidency, for which he is unfit like none other.
87
So, what are we to do?
Do we simply acquiesce to poor decision making? Do we close or eyes, ears, and mouths because Trump won the Electoral College? Do we sit by and act like chaos is normal? Do we abandon liberal democracy because some laid off factory workers in Pennsylvania are disgruntled?
This writer makes some valid points, but at the end off the day Trump is just not some ordinary president.
22
I'm sorry, I just can't take seriously the opinion of someone who uses "virtue" and "trump" in the same sentence.
The greatest of many anti-virtues of trump are his complete lack of knowledge and utter disregard of honesty, coherence and rules.
If anyone ever needed a handler, it is him.
45
I agree with part of this argument. Trump's supporters voted for Trump, not his cabinet members. But because Trump has no real understanding of policy, he can only be judged by his public statements and by the people he has picked. And the fact that he has gotten rid of so many of them is a tacit admission that his judgment is terrible.
15
Donald Trump's great virtue can only be that, like the rest of us, he is made up of no more than flesh and blood, and so, like the rest of us, he too will one day disappear from the face of the earth. To hope to live long enough to see that day is unseemly - but there it is.
18
Nice try. But you can’t have it both ways. Either he is unlike previous presidents in key ways (a genuine outside) or he isn’t. You say he is genuinely different. So why shouldn’t we talk about him differently? You want him to be expected to fulfill promises just like previous presidents. But he isn’t like previous presidents in key ways. It’s the nature of those key ways that explains what you regard as mere hypocrisy.
He knows less, lies more, and works much less hard than previous presidents. Those are the reasons we prefer contrarian advisers. You omitted those facts from your article, but sadly we can’t just wish them away.
Focusing on the critics ignores the very real flaws they criticize.
40
You acknowledge that new appointments will "spell the end of the Iran deal. And regarding North Korea or Syria, they might well mean war."
And you believe "These fears are misplaced" ? Why? You never provided facts to support why we should not fear a new war. If Trump packs the cabinet wit more like-minded narcissistic hawks the likelihood of wars of horrific violence, and destruction on many levels, for little or no gain, are increasingly likely.
Mr McCarthy I believe you vastly underestimate the dangerousness of the Trump administration, and the valuable power of appropriate fear in motivating necessary activism to protect ourselves and innocent people the world over.
17
I agree that Cabinet members are there to take the President's policies and transform them into real-world action, not to blunt his impulses or push back against his excesses. But that was before a numerical minority of Americans elected Trump.
I don''t know if this writer really believes that Trump and his incessant "Apprentice" style firings is somehow bringing coherence to his Administration, or if this writer is another conservative trying to butter up the guy who signs the big tax cuts. I suspect the latter.
Abusive bullies have a genius for recruiting armies of enablers, and this President is a master of that. Don't criticize him or he'll go nuts, tell him what he wants to hear.
The only solution to this problem is a Democrat sweep in November.
10
The present situation is unprecedented. Mr. Trump is dangerously unfit. House and Senate Republicans have abandoned their Constitutional oversight responsibilities. It is increasingly likely that Trump is guilty of both obstruction of justice and of treason. The cabinet would not invoke Article 25 even if it were necessary.
The writer of this piece tips his hand when he tells the untruth that Trump was selected for economic or policy reasons. Studies tell us his voters were motivated by racial resentment. Like Trump, this writer lies about the election results. A majority of voters did not vote for the president.
22
Nice attempt at normalizing this president and hey, in a normal time I would agree with this rationale, as both wise and absolutely justified. But it's Donald J. Trump we're talking about here and we have to face the very real possibility that this man-child, in one of his petulant, childish rages is perfectly capable of starting a nuclear war. Yes, he was fairly elected (we think), but surely his voters didn't knowingly vote for: the U.S. to completely lose its standing on the world stage; the granting of permission to Russia to interfere in our elections, our power-grid and who knows what else; the debasement of the presidency and the total failure of the man to exhibit the merest hint of moral leadership or even common decency. It would seem that a good number of Trump voters are beginning to realize what a disaster this president is, as well as the terrible damage he's capable of inflicting on our country and the world. Given the present circumstances and until we can elect a Congress that will do its job and check this executive, any staffer who can contain or minimize this president's worst impulses is a national hero in my view.
7
What's abnormal is such inability to accept that Trump is actually president. His critics are like stubborn children refusing to acknowledge authority and believing they are actually winning the argument. They're not. They're just whining.
McCarthy is one of several recent commentators who try to normalize the Trump presidency. He argues that it's a good thing that Trump "resists all tutelage" because supposedly the experts have led this country down a path of destruction. What does he think Trump's untutored gut will do?
He also assumes that White House chaos will eventually cease because Trump will have like-minded cabinet officials. Nonsense. Trump likes the chaos, and he needs it--he uses it for media distraction when he's under pressure. He also likes to see those who work for him at each other's throats (something he's admitted to, and a trait he shares with other authoritarians). The White House will become more chaotic as Mueller closes in, not less.
Finally, can we dispense with the fiction that the voters elected Trump? He was elected by the electoral college. The voters rejected him. I happen to think the voters were wise in rejecting him.
23
Trump was elected to keep our country safe and prosperous. Not even the most gifted and best prepared leader can do that by themselves. What chance do we have with Mr. Trump?
Are you saying that American voters have the right to perpetrate the murder/suicide of 300 million people, through their behavior in the voting booth?
4
One simple question for the author. If something goes wrong, much less terribly wrong, will Trump take responsibility? Or will he blame everyone and everything but himself? If you think he will take responsibility, you have not paid attention to anything that Trump has said or done as president. If you admit that he will never take responsibility, then everything you have said is dangerously preposterous.
18
Can't imagine why the author favors the creation of "groupthink" around the President where everyone must think like the leader or get fired. This is a recipe for disaster, especially when the leader is notorious for avoiding studying the issues about which he must make decisions.
5
Daniel McCarthy’s equation for White House staff departures omits a crucial parameter. He dwells on policy differences and asserts they are insufficient reason to quit trump.
What McCarthy seems oblivious to is that most people have too much integrity and self-esteem to become the chronic pervasive liar that trump is mandating they be.
https://tinyurl.com/y7j7k7de
4
Thank you for sending this column from the other side of the looking glass.
Liberals and the liberalish mainstream media abhor President Trump and his administration because Trump is ignorant, cruel, and petty. He is remaking his administration, and his supporters across the country, in this image. Trump and his cabal make no pretense of trying to help all Americans, and show open disdain for those unlike them.
The Best and the Brightest have often been guilty of arrogance and horrible miscalculation. The previous Republican administration, George W. Bush's, is an excellent example of this -- two disastrous and expensive wars, a profligate tax cut and economic/deregulation policy that contributed to the Great Recession. So, yeah, ok, path of destruction is fair.
But then the Obama administration dug us out of the Great Recession and started us on an economic expansion that has been going for 8 years. They did this while not getting us into any more wars, expanding healthcare coverage, and standing up for consumers, minorities, and women. They weren't perfect, but they were doing their best to help all Americans as equitably as possible.
I guess it is that last part that represents Obama's "path of destruction." Trump and his supporters can't stand the idea of an America that is true to its purported values of equality, freedom, and opportunity. Make America Great Again is really about going back to the days when white men were in charge, and didn't have to work that hard
16
You seem to be describing an absolute monarch, not a chief executive. Trump doesn't govern--the people do. Trump's the hired help.
10
The article ignores the mind boggling lack of qualification of Trump's underlings, which leads inevitably to their failure to present that full menu including disliked options. The statement that Trump cannot be molded by his advisers flies in the face of evidence that he is molded by whomever he speaks to at the moment.
4
Starting with the authors erroneous statement about Trumps majority victory. In fact it was trumps relatively thin electoral college victory that won his presidency. States slim margins (Wisconsin, Michigan, PA, FL) enabled it. Plus the Comey letter, Wikileaks, Russian hacking,... I could go on.
As another commenter noted his/my "Blue state" vote counted roughly 1/5 of what a voter from States like the Dakota's or Nebraska, et al did. Clearly something's wrong with this picture. 3 million more people preferred Hillary to Trump.
With the absolute worst and least qualified Cabinet in modern if not all US history, Trump and his enablers are ruining things for decades. Let's count some ways... The unprecedented number of lifetime judicial appointments, Pruitt's efforts to dismantle regulations, etc., Zinke working hard to sell off, DeVos devotion to all things charter as opposed to actual education. Shall I go on...
Under Clinton, Republican's came in with a government surplus, which Bush/Cheney (and their used to be deficit hawk enablers) squandered to the tune of hmm a couple trillion? More? Obama inherited a tanked economy, two wars and an obstructionist congress (see McCONnell, Mitch) yet managed with help from his friends to turn things around. To the extent that the Trump team inherited a growing economy in January 2016.
Of course like the rooster who believes his crowing makes the sun rise, Trump and his administration pals think they deserve all the credit.
12
I'm quick to admit that I'm committing a sin of writing a comment without having read the whole article. But I simply could not bring myself to finishing it. With all due respect to the author, and his right to have an opinion that's different from my own... It's just hard for me not to feel dismissive of this particular opinion as mere equivocation. The "what about other presidents?" argument is not applicable for the simple reason that Trump is not any other president. It's dishonest to claim that everybody who feels that this particular president needs to be "managed" does so merely because of their "dislike" of Mr. Trump. After all, he has so far done everything in his power to convince us that he is impulsive, incompetent, unable to grasp any remotely complex matters of policy, shady in his dealings, petty and unstable emotionally - and simply unsuitable for the job in every other way possible, and these are indeed the reasons we all hope that people next to him could be acting as checks on his worst instincts. I agree wholeheartedly, the cabinet should not, ideally, be serving as a crew babysitting an aging toddler. But, ideally, blatantly unqualified candidates should not be elected president either.
4
Dream On!
I’m glad that Trump will now be enabled to be Trump. This ill-informed, anti-intellectual, administration should be forced to govern on its so-called principles. The only way for the public to properly judge Trump is by the actions he takes that he must own. No one else to blame, no excuses!
It is a risk, but I’m willing to take it. He could blow up trade, or the Middle East, or the economy, or the federal deficit. Will his supporters actually blame him for his failures? Somehow I doubt it when it comes to the most rabid ones, so I figure he’ll still be beloved by 15% of the population no matter what happens.
3
Trump was not elected. He was appointed by an obsolete group called the electoral college.
8
Trump's entire campaign was a fraud. He lied to the American people throughout the campaign. He claimed he was going to self-fund his campaign so he would not be beholden to others. Reality was he was taking tons of money as part of a giant "pay for play" scheme. He should have been removed from office a long time a go.
6
I would suggest that McCarty read--or re-read--Doris Kearns Goodwins' "A Team of Rivals", about Lincoln, and his Cbinet.
That president, Abraham Lincoln, used and heeded the advice of his advisers. This one, Trump, does just the opposite. If they do not agree, and kowtow, with his ideas, plans, prejudices, techniques, etc, --he just fires them and replaces them.
8
This essay seems to say the a minority of voters in 2016 have doomed our country to four years of misrule by an unqualified president, with no interest in becoming qualified.
The only real take-away is that we need to vote in 2018 for a Congress that will block the president from inflicting more damage on the nation.
6
Oh, Mr. McCarthy, certainly you know that those of us who do not support Donald Trump still, perhaps now naively, obsess over his staff and cabinet choices with the faint hope that he may have or keep those who have true knowledge and intelligence and can exert a check on the madman. Why? Because, as you state, "he resists all tutelage" and the result, to paraphrase your last sentence, is He can't govern, and we can't live, without them.
2
Mr. McCarthy's analysis would have some validity were it not for facts which he omits: that Donald Trump, beyond his profound ignorance of virtually all the things that a president needs to understand, is plainly mentally deranged and unstable. In global affairs in particular he is transparently an unacceptable risk; every day that he controls the nuclear codes represents a renewed threat that our children and grandchildren will not grow up. This fact overwhelms any any normal considerations of respecting the outcomes of elections.
4
"An old joke attributed to Groucho Marx has a politician declaring: “These are my principles. If you don’t like them, I have others.” The same can be said about President Trump’s personnel — if you don’t like them, he has others."
The same can be said of President Trump's ideas.
And as for principles, he doesn't seem to have any of those.
4
The "policy elite's" Daniel McCarthy refers to are what we call in other fields the "experts". A medical doctor goes through ~30 years of training to be able to operate on you, a pilot has to take 10,000 hours of training to fly you places. You would rationally expect someone leading the country and significant branches of government or advising the people doing so, to have similar expertise in their fields. That is the way this works for all of us voters - otherwise we would have a monarchy. This piece is hogwash.
8
Mr. McCarthy does not understand how our political system works. The members of the president's cabinet swear an oath to support and defend the Constitution. They do not promise to do the same for the president. The president may hire and fire them at will. But cabinet members may not behave as if they were the servants of an authoritarian president. This is an indelible part of what we mean when we say "the rule of law."
5
Cabinet members are not "staff" and offering informed opinions is not "second guessing". Further, for proper functioning of the government, some cabinet members and their departments must be immune from a president. Justice, Treasury, the Bureau of Labor Statistics, NOAA, and the Bureau of the Census are some examples.
Mr. McCarthy's subtext is advocacy of a monolithic and autocratic executive, headed by the President. Sorry, I learned too much in civics and history classes in grade school to sign on to that.
9
Mr. McCarthy seems to be unaware of the oath that cabinet members (and many other government employees) take at their swearing in. It is to, "...support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic...". The oath says nothing about being loyal to the President.
Of course, they serve at the pleasure of the President, but their primary loyalty is to the American people - by upholding the Constitution.
21
yes! wonderfully stated and right to the heart of the matter. no gold-plated hagiography or hero-worship required. Canada remembers!
1
Daniel McCarthy is flat out wrong about the US President and the cabinet. "Public employees swear to uphold the Constitution of the US and of their respective states, if they are state employees. They have an obligation to follow the laws, not the whims of whoever is in power. Many a public employee has refused to follow an unlawful act; many have resigned. The cabinet does not work solely for Trump, the members work for the country and the people."
I agree with this statement. So, it is a balancing act. The president can order a cabinet member to do anything he wants done. If it is unlawful, they can comfortably decline or disobey the order. If they do not agree with the order, they can either resign or follow the order. The problem with our current president is that he campaigned in a haphazard way, stating opinion as fact and contradicting himself often. Who in their right mind would think they can accept a cabinet post and execute successfully in any way? White house operator greeting, "Donald J Chaos & Co. How may I confuse you?"
3
Daniel McCarthy is obfuscating the problem. Critics are not attempting to revisit the last election, rather protect the nation and our democracy from a man who is not fit to be president intellectually or temperamentally. The oath of office is not to be faithful to the president by "pulling oars in the direction set by the captain," but to remain faithful to the constitution. Trump is not living up to that standard. People who resist him are doing their country a great service.
36
Controlled, no. Advised intelligently, yes.
So we worry.
16
Nobody expects a Cabinet member to "control" Trump.
But geez, Mr. McCarthy, even a mid-level manager like me wants to hire people who are smart and knowledgeable; who might have a perspective that I don't; whom I can ask "which of these options do you think is best?" and assess their thoughtful response before making a decision.
Managing people that always agreed with me, or felt they couldn't be honest, would make me utterly cringe.
22
No one in the Obama administration ever voiced you idea here. Ever.
It was ALL about the team backing up the head guy. !00%
McCarthy says that Trump does not need to be controlled by his aides. The truth is that no one can control Trump. He needs to be stopped.
37
"Their duty is to assist him, their oars all pulling in the direction set by the captain." I think this is a serious misunderstanding of the function of the Cabinet members and others. Of course they serve at the pleasure of the President - but that does not mean they are intended to be his servants. After all, most of them are subject to confirmation by the Senate. One of their functions is to provide their best advice. The President may or may not take their advice -- but it is important that he hear it and take it into consideration. They cannot provide their best advice if the President fires them whenever he does not like their advice.
28
In recent weeks, Trump has rapidly accelerated the pace of unilateral attacks on global trade, causing alarm and instability on a global scale. This has already prompted the resignation of his Secretary of Commerce. The recent election of a Democrat in a conservative Republican District in southwest Pennsylvania indicates the the unmistakable mood and direction of the electorate as we near midterm Congressional elections. Trump has expressed his admiration for the intensified effort in China to consolidate autocratic rule. Under the United States Constitution, the President's cabinet has the power to remove the President from office. The urgency of the matter is immediate. The Cabinet needs to act now.
14
The principle propounded by Mr. McCarthy would make a fine lecture in an Introduction to Government course and in a properly functioning world (the best of all possible worlds?) it may serve to facilitate a smooth administration of our government. However, outside the theoretical world and in a dysfunctional administration it has to be adapted to reality. By way of example, I wish I could think of another president who needed a cabinet or staff to keep him in check. I can't, but there is no doubt that the current president needs desperately for the good of country to be kept in check and reeled in. Mr. McCarthy feels this sentiment only can come from those who dislike President Trump. I have to counter with the opposite, that only someone who likes the President could espouse the views laid out in this editorial.
"Support" or "like" or reel in" or "dislike" are all verbs of process. The choice of which of these processes we exercise should be dependent on the content that informs substance of the situation. The policies and actions of this President are such that the country cannot afford a rubber stamp cabinet or White House staff.
16
Problem here for me is Trump was selected and not elected. I also think an administration should give our leader food for thought and adversarial view points.
7
Wow. I feel like I just entered an alternate reality while reading this. I find it terribly frightening to see Trump assemble his perfect cabinet. His perfect cabinet will likely take us into another war, with either North Korea or Iran. I hope the Republican senate has enough sense to keep John Bolton from replacing McMaster. The last thing the country needs is to unleash Trump completely. Everything possible needs to be done to reign him in before we can vote him out. And we can all pray that the does not bring another economic collapse or war before he ifs finally out.
36
I must have been napping. While Tillerson is out, I hadn’t been made aware by a disembodied tweet at 5:00 AM that H.R. McMaster was out. It would be SO Trump to thumb his nose at the WaPost and keep him on. In any event, McMaster ain’t crow-bait just yet.
On balance, Mr. McCarthy is right. The grundoons hanging about the White House Cabinet Room are there at the pleasure of the president and there to do his bidding. I’d note that in modern times a greater degree of independence and distance is expected of the attorney general, since he actually does the law enforcement piece of the Executive charter – but even there it’s been rare that an A.G. wasn’t on the same page as the president.
Consider, though: Trump may be setting up a pretext for axing Sessions by axing others in a purge. Mueller can argue anything he wants, but whatever power he has or thinks he has doesn’t extend to telling the president how to organize his cabinet. He can simply argue that it’s an illegal “Obstruction”, and watch the House, in charge of formulating and advancing impeachment articles, laugh at him and tell him to go play in traffic.
On balance the author is right, but he needs a lighter touch. Most presidents expect their secretaries to fully support his policies, but also look to them as sounding boards on the areas they’re charged with administering, and expect them to be strong people who argue their convictions. Apparently, that expectation is weakest among presidents in THIS president.
2
But keep the history in view: Congress incrementally created most of these secretariats to compartmentalize and check the awesome power in which our constitution clothes a president; but they couldn’t get away with making these offices independent of supreme Executive power, which, when all is said and done, resides in the president.
Trump has his own way of using subordinates, and he has his own expectations of them. Come 3 November 2020, the people will give voice on whether or not they find such uses compelling. Until then, the rest of us may as well just sit back and enjoy the ride.
1
Wrong again ... the people will pass judgement in the midterms next fall. Impeachment and imprisonment will follow fast and follow faster.
I think I must be confused - or maybe McCarthy is confused - SOMEONE is confused. Is he offering his theory about the function of a president in the United States or is he commenting on the reality of the actual president of the United States?
He does state, in reference to both Democrats and Republicans: "The advice they give, sound in theory, is terrible in practice." So this makes him sound like he is trying to be realistic, or he may even be trying to imply that he is more realistic than most. Though I also note his statement "the people who do the molding in our politics have for too long led our country down a path of destruction..." This smacks of rhetorical excess - the mark of someone who his overly inwardly focused, possibly obsessed.
Does he mean the country IS destroyed or does he mean he envisions the country being destroyed - in which case he is not distinguishing between an actual state of affairs and some state that does not actually exist.
Or perhaps he maintains that he can predict the future, in which case I would have to wonder why he is not busy in the stock market, rather than writing political commentary.
All in all, I would regard what McCarthy has generated for this column as evidence of a pronounced inability to distinguish between the productions of his own mind and an exogenously-produced perception of reality. I note that this is one of the cardinal features of a group of major psychiatric illnesses.
26
Regardless of party, the cabinet and other presidential advisers should be intellectually superior, expert in their field of appointment, ethically principled and willing to disagree with the President when a policy or proposed action is not in the interest of the company.
Otherwise, just appoint a slice of lemmings.
20
Sorry, but my last sentence in the first paragraph should have stated "not in the interest of the country". It appears to many that Trump places company first before country.
The author is the first commentator on the subject that actually makes sense. The President decides policy not his advisors. They can present ideas to him, but the decisions must be his and his decisons need to be followed not obstructed.
3
There's a difference between carrying out a settled policy and how the actual decisionmaking process is structured and conducted. Seriously, you should read up on some of the work of Irving Janis on this -- it's been around a long time.
6
But Mr. Trump had his hands on the scale, or rather Mr. Putin did. It seems evident by any number of measures the Mr. Trump we know today would not have carried the election — that those 77,000 votes spread across 3 states would have evaporated with timely disclosure of Stormy Daniels, Trump Jr, Manafort, obstruction of justice, etc etc. Conversely, given what we know now, wouldn’t the outcome of the election be different if we had given more credence to the Russian-funded smear campaign of Ms. Clinton? While she may have been a flawed candidate, she seems no more flawed than Mr Trump has turned out to be.
You raise important points that should be considered. Saying elections have consequences doesn’t mean our manner of government invites the silencing of discourse and dissent - even within the President’s ranks. Is it a coincidence that Mr. Tillerson and Mr. McMaster had developed perspectives contrary to an accommodation of Mr. Putin? Why was Mr Trump so unsuccessful in developing properties in Russia yet apparently quite successful in attracting Russian investment? The airing of dirty laundry is minimized by constantly changing the story. In his capacity as President, Mr Trump does not exercise absolute authority, especially when his perspectives seem so one-sided and his ethical judgement so fungible. We don’t look to be ruled. Real authority comes from setting an example and satisfying our hunger to be inspired and united in pursuit of something bigger than ourselves.
11
Let us say we agree with the author's premise that the duty of a President's staff is to "assist him, their oars all pulling in the direction set by the captain". no matter what the direction. There are a number of problems with this. First, the staff will be going in circles. Just to pick the most recent example, their oars would have been pulling full speed ahead towards sensible gun control some 2 weeks ago, only to move full speed in retreat a few days later. Second, they will occasionally be asked to lie or do something illegal, e.g., to cook up some justification to fire a lower ranking official the President dislikes. But the bottom line is why would any body want to work for a presidency that looks like a train wreck, especially knowing that they are likely to last a few months at best?
11
Public employees swear to uphold the Constitution of the US and of their respective states, if they are state employees. They have an obligation to follow the laws, not the whims of whoever is in power. Many a public employee has refused to follow an unlawful act; many have resigned. The cabinet does not work solely for Trump, the members work for the country and the people.
18
I totally agree with you - what's best for the "country & the people" (unfortunately, always open to interpretation!) - and I bet the author of this essay would be demanding cabinet members oppose their boss - if the boss was not doing what the author wants - but in this case, the boss might have policies the author agrees with.
1
I think we all agree that having excellent people who can provide alternative options and make the best case for them is desirable. Of course, you have to have people who are basically loyal to the leader and generally support his overall direction, at least after a decision has been made. The actual people you have to choose from usually falls short of what one would prefer. So you pick who seems the best person available. No one is suggesting that general support for and loyalty to the leader includes clear violations of the law or clear cases of unethical behavior. One always has the option of saying no, and if necessary resigning. Yes, people should have the good of the country in mind and that should motivate them, but it has to be done within the constraints of the fact that you are working for somebody else who was elected to lead. If you happen to not like the policy directions of the leader, then naturally you hope somebody will be able to persuade the leader to adopt one's preferred policy. Now that I think about it, I'm not sure there's a real issue. Some people like Trump and want to support him and some don't like him and want to thwart him. Sounds like politics.
On the point of taking an oath to support the constitution, it's not clear what that entails. But it presumably not entail being a walking Supreme Court who is authorize to "say what the law is." How the constitution should be construed cannot be agreed on by law professor or supreme court judges. If you are hired to be an official, it's really not your job to interpret the constitution. You leave that to others. If you are convinced that the work you are being asked to do is harming the country (whether or not it's constitutional), you have an ethical choice to make--as no doubt people in other jobs have. Other things being equal, if you think you are harming the country or individuals, then you should try to do something different. But the fact that someone takes an oath to support the constitution adds nothing to the ethical obligations one already has as a human being and citizen. And it's not a license for anarchy or subversion. Anarchy and subversion may be required sometimes, but it's not made legitimate by the oath.
First of all, the majority of Americans voted for Clinton. Second, it is the job of an advisor to ADVISE, not to be an order taker. I disagree with the article. No good will come of Trump gaining greater control of the office. It will only bring us closer to a totalitarian government, as is happening in China, Russia and France. God save America.
34
Why are you throwing France into a he totalitarian mix, they rejected the ignorance of LE Pen and voted for a man that exudes democratic principles.
I'm going to guess Mr. McCarthy never read "Team of Rivals", which says Lincoln's effectiveness as chief executive came precisely from the degree to which he accepted input from men who had been his political opponents and gave them enormous authority in their own right. All effective Presidents have leaned heavily on their cabinets. Lincoln's successor, Andrew Johnson, considered by many to be the worst President ever (not so many as before, I'd say), was known for fighting with his cabinet members, and trying to replace them.
If the President is showing signs of mental and emotional instability, we actually have an Amendment to out Constitution that gives the cabinet a right to remove him from power. We are not a monarchy. We don't aspire to be one. But Trump wants us to be one.
Mr. McCarthy isn't writing an article, he's writing a job application. He obviously couldn't get that coveted slot on Fox & Friends, and I'm afraid since Mr. Trump doesn't read, he'll be disappointed in his office-seeking.
But let me say, if I ever see his name listed so prominently here again, I'm canceling my subscription.
37
The big lesson, and I'm doubtful it has been learned, is that votes matter. The electoral college made Trump president, but there was a large number of votes that made that possible.
People who voted for third party candidates or for Trump himself because there was a desire to make a statement, got us into this mess. So did the ones who were so turned off that they didn't bother to vote. Choosing a president is serious business.
9
"Democratic government is healthiest when the people understand that a leader they chose is of one mind with the colleagues that he chooses"....To be of one mind with Trump his colleagues would all have to be vulgar bigoted narcissists completely unqualified for their jobs. What Trump is doing speaks of someone who is unhinged. Just because someone is elected does not mean the country should follow them down a rat hole. If there is no way to find relief, Trump stands as proof that the concept of representative democracy is not functional.
32
W.A. Spitzer is correct that if Trump surrounds himself with people like him they will be "vulgar bigoted narcissists completely unqualified for their jobs". This is not a consummation devoutly to be wished for.
There is a deeper reason that McCarthy is WRONG, at least on this plane of reality.
Democratic government in the history of this country is usually very healthy when the President chooses people who on some important issues disagree with him. Consider the position of Secretary of State. In high school history class I read about some very feisty Secretaries, like Henry Clay and Daniel Webster and John C. Calhoun. I decided to test what the Founding Fathers did in this regard, so I looked up the first six confirmed Secretaries of State: Thomas Jefferson, Edmund Randolph, Timothy Pickering, John Marshall, James Madison and Robert Smith, most of them great statesmen. Not one would have qualified under the rules that McCarthy claims to be true. Some were fired. Abraham Lincoln, of course, put into his cabinet and chose for his top generals some people who didn't just disagree with him, they (sometimes only initially) despised him.
Let me repeat my statement. McCarthy's claims that government is healthiest when the Leader is of one mind with the subordinates he chooses" has never been true in America, at least not on this plane of reality.
6
First off, the majority of the electorate did not vote Trump into office. The Electoral College did. Let's get rid of it.
Second, it is exactly the cabinet members (and the vice president) who are responsible for controlling the president, in this case through application of the 25th Amendment. We have a president who has been from day one unable to discharge the duties of the office, such as reading daily briefings, or even attempting to understand the complexities of foreign policy, or uphold the decorum and dignity of his office (and on and on).
27
Who is going to stop Trump from nuclear war? These hawks around Trump are itching to nuke someone, Iran or N Korea. And it would cure the trade deficit with China and S Korea because of the deaths from nuclear winds.
14
Trump was elected to govern with Congress and the Courts according to the Constitution as the elected and selected hired help of the American people.
Because Trump has no governing political experience he needs all of the helpful competent talent that he can attract, gather and manage in order to govern effectively.
8
No POTUS is elected to govern alone. Voters realize that no one person can possess all the knowledge and skill that is required to succeed in this extremely difficult job. People in positions of power need good advice from experts. They don't need an echo chamber.
22
Ah, I see. So when Mr. Trump said, "I hire only the best people," what he OUGHT to have said was, "I hire only the most obedient people."
26
You are correct - a majority of the voters in a majority of the states elected Donald Trump. BUT a majority of the voters in the entire county elected Hillary Clinton. In most views of democracy the second would carry the the Presidency
Not here because we have the Electoral College and arguably because the Framers did not trust democracy and the voters. Specifically, the Electora were charged with determing the best person for the job of President, with the option of NOT choosing the person not chosen by “a majority of the voters in a majority of the states”. Did that happen? Did the electors really choose the ‘best person’ for the job?
Trump is obviously feeling his ‘oats’ - he will be more and more ‘Trump’ as the months go by. I hope Congress changes hands in November, because the Framers also put power and responsibility in the hands of Congress and Republicans have proven to be unable to fulfill their responsibilities.
Beside
18
Ruth - don't be so quick to believe any Trump cheerleader when he makes claims for how well Trump did in the popular vote or how Trump's inauguration was the biggest ever. They ingratiate themselves with their Leader, to whom the subject matters a great deal, by such lies.
Trump won a majority of the votes in 23 states, which is less than a majority of 50. Clinton had three million more popular votes. The 4.5 million Libertarian voters this time were heavily "never Trump" voters and the 1.5 million Green voters were not just closer to Clinton, they were to the left of her. Evan McMullen, who entered the race after the Planet Hollywood tapes surfaced entirely to take votes from Trump, was only on the ballot in a few states but got 700,000 votes (including 21% in Utah). There is no way McCarthy's claim is anywhere close to the truth.
1
He didn’t win! He doesn’t represent the majority of his constituents. Why don’t elects feel the need to represent all their constituents not just those who voted for them?
14
:Daniel McCarthy obviously can't see straight. His and Trump's and the Republican Party's time is over. Our USA wakes up during a bad dream, and now we fix it by returning to reality.
23
I agree that Trump is both unqualified and unfit for office, and I wish that his advisors could change his policies. But the writer is correct in saying that he is our elected president, and and that Trump's administration must follow his lead. Voters should have taken more seriously what Trump said as a candidate and what he had done before.
As a country, we should learn a lesson, but I doubt we will. (For over a century, too many of us have bought the argument that business people can do it better, can govern better.)
Perhaps we'll finally get over our mistaken belief in American exceptionalism. We had some good ideas at our founding, but many other countries can carry them out at least as well as we can.
10
Reagan truly had no idea how to develop and to implement policies and he called upon others who did to implement his visions, which he had. Trump really has no visions about anything except how he looks on stage. That has been and will be the source of all the confusion and contradictory messages from his administration, and it will never really change.
But it's pretty clear to anyone who is not trying to rationalize Trump's chaotic behavior if one pays attention that he's lost in this job and he will never really offer this country any leadership, just a lot of stories for the mass media. Trump has no philosophical center, no definite views on the wide world and the future of this country, from which to guide his efforts, he just takes what he hears and wings it. That's why he keeps changing his positions so often.
25
Reagan had a vision of driving the Soviet Union bankrupt, not of an market economy which could operate in any state of equilibrium. He sold out the automobile and and steel industries in the effort to finance this arms race and keep taxes comfortable for the wealthy, but whose interests did he ultimately advocate? We have heard for decades how Reagan ended the Soviet Threat; where has that reasoning lead us under Citizens United? Reagan started representing oligarchs about the time he sold out the actors during his tenure as head of the SAC. He made his name by villifying the University of California. He was a figurehead, an interface to the threats we face today; who, like Trump, relied on verbal counsel because he really didn't know how to read at that level. Why talk about Bush, by extension, when Cheney was controlling the narrative, not the reformed alcoholic and failed business man who knew how to be all things to all men by saying nothing in particular?
The recognition that Trump needs handlers is one that stems from the desire to protect this country and its citizens from his inexperience, to say nothing of his personality flaws or numerous conflicts of interest.
22
It's certainly not for McCarthy to tell us what we should expect of a national employee. Having McCarthy explain what government does or does not do is like a bricklayer explaining what a neurosurgeon does, with due respect to the bricklayers. We hope that the cabinet is made up of patriots because the president is a FSB agent, witting or unwitting. It is in the interest of the nation that all/most of the cabinet will act to protect us from more harm.
Perhaps, McCarthy forgets the 25th amendment that gives the cabinet the power to initiate the removal of a destructive president. But then McCarthy's a conservative commentator. Hardly the calling of an above-the-average intellect.
37
Not ashamed to say I don't understand the author's point.
Is he saying a President doesn't need a qualified cabinet to assist him or her with their decisions?
Is he saying Trump is capable of governing alone?
Neither premise is believable.
54
If someone was operating on my brain or flying the airplane in which I was passenger, I would not take comfort in the notion that they were learning on the job and might implement novel paradigms. Same goes for POTUS who’s missteps can imperil the health, prosperity and tranquility of everyone on Earth.
44
Our elected and appointed officials of both political parties SELL THEIR VOTES and their influence to award no-bid PAY TO PLAY government contracts funded from the public treasuries.
This is probably one of these no-bid Construction Management design-build contracts awarded their campaign contributor's business (and/or to anybody else offering campaign contribution money) AT A VERY REASONABLE PRICE.
6
Daniel McCarthy's faith in President Trump's knowledge, competence, leadership, integrity, and intelligence is touching but, I very much fear, misplaced. Most have a stronger loyalty to the country and the Constitution than to President Trump (and Trump hates that and is trying fix it as fast as he can), but those who want to preserve country and Constitution can clearly see—based on Trump's actual words and actions—that leaving him uncontrolled and with dissenting views silenced will put both in jeopardy.
33
Daniel McCarthy makes an interesting point. Never before have I thought about a president being 'checked' by his advisors. Informed, guided, but not checked. Under normal circumstances, a president consults with advisors and, after discussions and white papers are debated and political consequences are weighed, the president's advisors carry out the president's directives. However, when the president seems to formulate directives on the fly, based upon the opinion of last person with whom he has spoken, trusted advisors are needed to weigh the options and to bring him back to being what Gail Collins has called "Sort of Normal Republican" Trump. I hoped that the departures of Bannon and Gorka might lead to some normalization. But no. It now seems that his new advisors (post Cohen and Tillerson, and maybe post McMaster) will encourage the "unhinged Trump" (Gail Collins' term again) to take center stage and remain there.
32
One of Mr. Trump's top selling points was that his inexperience didn't matter because he hires the best people. He claimed over and over again that he would hire a crack team of experts to advise him on the best course of action. Yes, he did also claim to be the one and only man able to put the country to rights. But many of his supporters voted for him because they saw him as a potentially competent boss and hand-waved his inexperience because he'd have advisors to help him on the subjects in which he was lacking. His administration satisfies a certain core of Trump loyalist voters who DID vote in a singular man to solve all of our problems. But he has utterly failed at meeting the expectations of the rest of the country, many of his voters included, who thought he'd be a competent manager.
The president may be elected by the people solely on his or her own merits and assuming no one else is required. But this nation cannot run by the orders of one man. The president sets the direction, negotiates with the appropriate people as necessary, and trusts the implementation to his cabinet and advisors because he literally, humanly, can't do it all himself, no matter how high an opinion he may have of himself. And if that cabinet and those advisors are unable to perform those tasks or are swapped out faster than fast food employees, that implementation will fail, regardless of who occupies the oval office.
24
A couple of major issues with the premise here:
1. Ok, so the cabinet is not there to second guess the President. But does the President even know what he himself wants in the first place, seeing as he keeps changing his mind so very often? If so, isn't it at least incumbent on the President to keep his cabinet members in sync with his thoughts? If he doesn't how is anyone to know which side of a position is he on a particular day? What do you say of the poor cabinet member who in trying to articulate the President's opinion finds himself publicly repudiated a day later by the President himself?
2. So we want cabinet members that are of one mind with the President. But is it too much to ask that they at least have basic competence? Let's take some examples. Betsy DeVos and Trump might share views on how to reform the education system. But neither of them has demonstrated a fig of basic knowledge about this topic. Or take the recently ousted Mr. Tillerson. In what capacity did his being CEO of Exxon prepare him to lead the State Department? As it turned out, he wasn't even of the same mind as Trump. Couldn't "I-hire-the-best-people" Trump have figured this out before hiring him? Finally, we have Larry Kudlow. Just because he appears on CNBC does not automatically make him an expert on economic matters, as has been amply proven by his consistently wrong prognostications.
23
I have to assume that the author represents the best of current conservative thinking. If so, what a sad reflection on that august tradition. The entire piece is predicated on an assumption that all presidents are created equal, and that they all enjoy at least a modicum of sanity and probity. Even the most casual observer of the current presidency must recognize that we have a monster at the helm, and that it absolutely IS the responsibility of his cabinet to try and keep him in check. A Strangelove who surrounds himself with mini-Strangeloves, who then sycophantically amplify his insanity, is sure to lead us all to extreme disaster.
66
"His great virtue is that he cannot be molded by his advisers; he resists all tutelage." Certainly true----but Mr. McCarthy forgot the second part of this truth----which is that all actions will be designed to serve Donald Trump and Donald Trump alone, regardless of how those actions affect every other American---or the world. Mr. McCarthy is obviously fine with this. Many Americans and most thinking folks from around the world are horrified.
33
“These are my principles. If you don’t like them, I have others.” A phrase more logically applied to Trump than his advisers. His "principles" change as quickly as his last conversation. It is only because Trump has had people who are willing to rein him in occasionally that the world has yet to explode. McCarthy makes the all to common mistake of writing of Trump as if he were a reasonable, rational, informed human being. He is not.
26
I think McCarthy makes a fair point. While leaders shouldn't be surrounded by yes-men, an election can, in a sense, be viewed as a mandate to govern in a specific style. Advisors that constrain the president's ability govern can be harmful. None of this applies however to Trump, who is incapable of coherence, lucid thought, or competence in general.
10
It's not a mandate when you lose the popular vote. The nation was and remains deeply divided about the competency of the Electoral College winner, with a plurality voting against him in 2016 and a large majority disapproving of his performance now.
21
Just about everything written here neglects facts, good management practices (which is what Trump based his candidacy on), democratic leadership principles and common sense. Many wanted a change - his style has generally not delivered as promised and is largely based on ignorance because it is simpler for him that way. The vote was not a referendum on democracy; this writer and Trump seem to think it was.
42
"....a dislike of Mr. Trump can lead to a dangerously distorted view of government".
What kid of twisted logic is that? We dislike trump precisely because he has a distorted view of government. Like his party, only more openly.
89
I don't think people want the presidency subject to the oversight of presidential appointees, just Trump.
9
In the wilder heydey of his first turn as governor of California, Jerry Brown once commented that he should be judged on the people he has appointed and that surround him since they make many of the key decisions affecting the state of affairs. Wise words, and ones that would apparently make no sense to Mr. Trump or Mr. McCarthy. No one is elected President on the assumption they will know all and make all decisions alone. That would be lunacy in a role that requires constant reading of the pulse of the planet. Our expectation is to hire someone who reads incessantly and consults intelligence constantly. But, Trump's obvious allergy to knowledge and guidance is what sets him very much apart from any previous person holding the post, and it will most likely be what ultimately brings him down.
35
Interesting obfuscation: A majority of voters in a majority of states elected Trump.
He ignores the fact that a total majority of voters throughout the US did not elect him.
54
Bill Mitchell, as you obfuscate in return, with the objective of making a pointless complaint. You ignore the fact that in the United States of America the "total majority of voters throughout the US" NEVER elect the President.
Mr. McCarthy is absolutely correct in what he wrote. Rather than grumble about the Electoral College, as if the popular vote somehow invalidates the election, I suggest anti-Trumpsters (of which I am one) accept reality, and use that popular vote plurality to motivate us the next time around.
A great argument for decreasing the power of the presidency, and for abolishing the Electoral College.
The same right wing ideologues who gloat that “elections have consequences” complained endlessly of Obama’s “executive overreach” and the Clintons’ corruption that was pathetically mild compared with what we see now.
As a New England ex-Republican I feel my voice is drowned out by screaming partisans. I long for a constitutional republic with the rule of law and respect for facts. I will never be at peace with would-be authoritarian rule by a president apparently concerned with the opinions solely of a “base” that comprises less than 20% of registered voters.
Not right that the votes of millions of Californians for Clinton had no effect, just as, under different circumstances, my vote for a Republican candidate in this deep blue state would be meaningless. The President should be chosen by popular vote.
69
Couldn't disagree more. McCarthy is describing a Trump autocracy. The alarm at the chaos in the white house by so many of our other elected officials, and dedicated civil servants, is appropriate and responsible. We have never needed all the other checks and balances built into our shaky government more than we do today. Trump is NOT an autocrat. The majority that did NOT elect him is still here and watching closely.
45
Wait, do cabinet secretaries swear loyalty to the president or do they swear to uphold and defend the Constitution?
Oh, right, it’s the latter. So much for this author’s argument.
252
They also swear to execute the duties of the office - the duties, scope and nature of which are dictated by the President. Unfortunately you can be a misguided malignant tumor on the country and the world and not have broken any part of the constitution or its defense.
This is one of the most frightening columns I've read in The NY Times, *ever*. Is this man serious? If so, holy smokes! An unchallenged and uncontrolled tRump is possibly the end of human life on earth. He'll blow us up with our nuclear weapons because he thinks his button is bigger than Kim Jong Un's
I can't decide if this was tongue in cheek or not. I certainly hope so and that I was fooled...
60
What a simplistic approach to how our modern government should work under a "democratically" elected President who happens to be singularly ill equipped for the job. The purpose of the Cabinet and advisors is to provide the President, like any competent chief executive, with expertise and counsel so that they can effectively and intelligently govern. In a complex world we cannot and should not expect the President to be an expert on everything. Indeed, this President's belief in his own universal expertise ("I know more than the Generals") is one of his greatest deficiencies as President; he doesn't know what he doesn't know.
To suggest that Trump was elected with a clear mandate or clear policies is naïve at best. Trump changed his position on issues on the campaign trail as he has in the oval office. People who claim that he is fulfilling campaign promises are cherry picking from his stated (and often inconsistent) positions and promises.
This President and this country need this President to be surrounded by people who know what they are talking about and not mere cheerleaders for the boss man. Anyone who suggests otherwise is not interested in the good of this country.
65
The issue of "control" is being discussed only because Trump is out of control, creating chaos and fear.
Otherwise, your point is valid.
8
The author's argument is based on the false assumption that the handful of people in a number of swing states who decided the election, did so out of a alignment with Trump's nationalist bent, economic strategies such promoting clean coal, protectionism, buy American etc). Fact remains many people voted for him for not being a Clinton and for having a business background. What they got of course is a man who will lie when it's in his best interest, can not focus on complex issues, no patience for reading, can not write a position paper and relies on the opinion of TV commentators for policy decisions. But the author is right that he should not be controlled - he needs to be impeached.
68
There are aspects of Mr Trump that no other president has ever brought to the office. I recognize that they are not facts but my observations and opinions.
First, I do think that Trump is impulsive and ill-informed underneath those impulses, and basically uninterested in trying to inform himself. I dont know of any president ever who has been remotely like him in that way. So the question of certain of his team members exerting a check on him has to be viewed from that perspective. And I dont think that is a "dangerously distorted view of government." Again, that is my view and it doesnt look distorted to me.
And second, I do think that Mr Trump's appeal to "majorities of voters in a majority of states " was the work of a salesman who figured out what folks wanted and figured out how to sell himself to them. I am reminded of something Lincoln said when he was a congressman. In rebuttal to a colleague's argument in debate, he said 'That reminds me of the book seller who told his customer 'Sir, if you're the kind of man who likes this kind of book, then this is the kind of book a man like you would like.' " The idea that Trump personally cares about the problems of his base is to me almost laughable. He is a rich man who cares about the cares of the rich. FDR was rich but truly cared about the problems of his voters.
I hope there will be those who recognize a need to check Trump, even if they lose their jobs. At least they won't lose their reputations.
27
According to the WSJ Trump has arrived at a "Truce" with his Chief of Staff. No doubt McCarthy would also consider this perfectly normal.
McCarthy's pieces (like this one and his bizarre defense of protectionism) are an interesting insight into just how detached from reality the Trump supporting Republican far right has become.
28
I regret that my opinion has been rejected. But not as much as I regret the election of Trump.
13
The great flaw in McCarthy's essay is found in this sentence: "... the real key to policy lies not with them [his advisers] but with a single unchanging executive branch employee: Donald J. Trump."
The problem is obvious and, mysteriously, McCarthy misses it. There is no "single unchanging ... employee" here. Trump's positions change on a daily, sometimes hourly, basis. His priorities shift with each passing conversation, with each new Fox & Friends broadcast, with each chat with Kushner or Miller.
There's no coherent policy on anything. Mr. McCarthy will, one can only hope, look back on this essay some day with a sense of embarrassment.
167
areber is correct that Trump is frequently impulsively changing, and that this pretty much throws Daniel McCarthy's argument right out the window.
I would add that there are ways in which Trump does not change: racism, bigotry against foreigners, misogyny, ignorance about wide areas he must deal with, and an incredibly deep love of lying. And yes, these did endear him to his base (and still do). As Trump develops more and more confidence in how he does his job, it's no wonder that he will expel staff who might restrain him. Daniel McCarthy is most emphatic that this is a good thing. I doubt that it is.
4
The President is suppose to represent the people (not his own wayward and narcissitic interests). Congress is also suppose to represent the interests of US citizens. Congress has the power to box in and limit any damage done by a self serving President. Let's hope that congress warms to its responsibility before irrevocable damage occurs.
28
Thank you NY Times for publishing this. It's good to read another perspective, even if most of us don't agree that this president's approach is a sound one.
Yes, he was democratically elected so the citizens got what they voted for. Fair point.
As to whether what's going on is OK. This is pretty basic "management 101" stuff. For the US to be successful, it has to be led by a competent leader. Competent leaders are usually very good at selecting qualified staff that meet the requirements of the job and, more importantly, at leveraging the skills and strengths of their senior advisers. Donald Trump, my friends, is not a competent leader.
First obvious sign of any incompetent leader is that they lose most of their staff and randomly fire people that they suddenly decide they don't like. This style sows divisions within the ranks and creates alot of anxiety for the population of employees. That's what's happening right now.
In an organization, the underlings would also all be quitting. When the organization is the US government however it's the citizens that become anxious and we're seeing this everywhere - thanks to the President that they voted in.
33
Unfortunately, contrary to Mr. McCarthy’s ‘majorities ...’ statement, more voters voted for Mrs. Clinton than voted Mr. Trump. About three million voters, a nontrivial number. My observations are that Mr. Trump has made absolutely no effort to build any bridges across this divide. Instead he continues to denigrate organizations institutions and people of good faith.
39
Notice the pretzel McCarthy had to twist himself into to not lie: "a majority of voters IN A majority of states." The fact that 77,000 votes in three states overrode 2.85 million votes overall is ignored by the conservative Republican Trump apologist, including the author here. They only care about winning, not governing, not the good of the country, not a stable world. Vote them all out while you still can.
5
What Mr. McCarthy leaves out is that any moderately astute business leader would assemble of team of experts that possessed strategic beliefs that were at at least somewhat in line with his own.
He could then hear them out for tactical opinions to achieve the shared big picture strategy. Feelings might get hurt if he chose someone else's tactics but no one would be forced to resign over irreconcilable policy differences.
If he was truly inquisitive, he might even bring in outside experts to challenge his strategy.
18
Those who think that it is should stop to consider the implications. If President Trump is meant to be checked and controlled by staff, what other presidents might be? Perhaps one on the verge of appointing to the Supreme Court a justice who would cast the deciding vote to overturn Roe v. Wade?
*****
Whatever. Right now the Senate should refuse to approve any of the president's appointees until after the next election when the people have spoken.
23
McCarthy has the problem wrong. The main problems are that Trump isn't intellectually curious, nor does he understand public service. Advisers are there to make sure the president makes informed decisions. Being informed, the president can decide for himself. President Trump, however, governs from a purely transactional standpoint, and he does this without understanding the implications of his actions (the healthcare reform fiasco is a prime example). That's a big problem, especially since he lost the popular vote by almost three million votes.
22