Donald Trump’s difficulties began because “He’s not one of us!”

The Washington establishment consists of thousands of Republicans and Democrats who are either working in government or working as Washington lobbyists, lawyers, or in think tanks.

 

The relevance and impact of this situation was given to me in a conversation several years ago with my Congressman, Morgan Griffith, the excellent Republican Representative of Virginia’s Ninth District. I had brought up the idea that Congressional term limits were needed, and he noted that even with term limits, there would still exist the very influential members of the Washington establishment and those in the bureaucracy.

 

While elected members of Congress’ tenure in Washington would be limited, the tenure of the establishment and the ensconced bureaucracy would not be affected, he said.

 

What normally occurs when a president’s term is over and the other party has won the election is that the new president brings in people from the law firms, think tanks and lobbying organizations to fill many administrative positions.

 

These are people who have functioned in or near the national government before, know the ropes, and can help the new president put together a knowledgeable administration in a relatively short period of time, and some of it before the election.

 

Some of the out-going administration’s personnel then move to the lobbying organizations, think tanks and law firms, and await their turn to move back into government. Those in the bureaucracy often remain in their positions. Not all of them are able to put aside their own political preferences in order to properly serve their country under a president with different ideas.

 

The “new guy” — or someday, “new gal” — has a built-in obstacle to conquer, the “bureaucrat mentality” lying quietly beneath the surface: “Presidents come and go, but we are here forever!”

 

When he was elected, Donald Trump had not only that obstacle, but he was also an outsider to the Washington establishment, and therefore was unable to utilize the establishment as other presidents have. To further complicate things, he campaigned on the idea of draining “the swamp,” consisting of those in the establishment, and in the bureaucracy.

 

Thus, Trump had a harder task than other presidents who were part of the Washington establishment, or at least had a firm connection to it. He didn’t have a group of close associates who had gained valuable experience and knowledge of how the federal government worked and could be called in — called in again, in many instances — to fill an important slot.

 

Trump had the Herculean task of forming a government in a short time period using the people he knew and thought competent, but who were from a world away. Many were in business, not politics. Such is the recipe for chaos, and that is exactly what occurred.

 

The first days of any administration are somewhat wobbly, but because of the “outsider” nature of Trump and the team he was assembling, this one was more so. Add to that the people who already didn’t like Trump in politics, including some Republicans, and the media. They didn’t like an outsider winning the election, especially this particular one. Others had their egos mortally injured by Trump’s combative style. Those factors made things even worse.

 

These folks oppose everything Trump says and does, without regard to any benefits that result from them. In fact, benefits are often twisted into negatives. And, nearly everything, despite how positive it may otherwise be, has some negatives. Small negatives are often magnified by exaggeration and portrayed as errors. It appears the operational motto is, “oppose Trump at any cost.”

 

Trump campaigned on a popular theme: “Make America Great Again!” Many don’t think America was ever great, and certainly isn’t great now. Their idea, like that of former President Barack Obama, is to fundamentally transform the United States of America.

 

Instead of helping the economy produce jobs and giving working Americans more money in their pockets, as Trump did by cutting taxes and harmful regulations, the loyal opposition prefers such expensive boondoggles as the Green New Deal, ending fracking, and Medicare for All.

 

It also wants to change the way the citizenry will vote in this election by moving away from in-person voting at polling places, under the theory that it is less safe to vote than to shop for groceries. Instead, everyone will be mailing back the ballot they received in the mail.

 

Mailing ballots works pretty well for Absentee Ballots requested by individual voters, and in states that have an established system for voting-by-mail. Prior to the pandemic, only five states — Colorado, Hawaii, Oregon, Utah and Washington — had a vote-by-mail system in place.

 

The idea that the other 45 states and the District of Columbia can clean up voter rolls and establish a dependable system is a fairy tale. Some of the problems reside in the Postal Service, but the more serious problems are in state voter rolls, where people who have moved, some to other states, and others who have died are still on the voter rolls. Each one is an opportunity for mischief.

 

Democrats and Republicans always have different ideas about the country’s needs. This Republican president, even with some successes, has had so much more opposition than the others.

When egos and political considerations trump honorable service

Have you ever been in a situation where the person in charge of a unit is neither liked or respected by some members? Most likely, you have; such dynamics are not unusual.

Sometimes, some members get together and talk about how the leader is heading in the wrong direction, how her/his ideas are at odds with the previous leader. 

Some of the disaffected have been there for many years, and feel a deep connection to the unit, and like the way things were done in the past. They believe that things will go downhill quickly, unless something is done.

At this point, there are options for the disaffected, but only two of them are honorable. First, they can swallow hard, follow the direction of the leader, and do their job as well as possible. Second, they can turn in their resignation and look elsewhere for a situation that suits their preferences. 

That’s all; nothing else is acceptable. Anything else is subversive.

This scenario can be an issue for any new president of the United States upon taking the oath of office. Federal career employees — bureaucrats, the establishment — have been around for a while and likely served more than one president. They often have their own ideas about who “really” runs the country — them, many believe — and how things should be done.

Depending upon how those bureaucrats and political appointees decide to behave, problems often result. Most of the current federal bureaucracy served during some or all of the administrations of presidents Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and Barack Obama. Many of them probably did not like some of what one or more of the presidents under whom they served was doing. 

On January 20, 2017, Donald Trump became President of the United States, and the stage was set for what we see happening today. Many government employees have their own ideas about how the country should be run, and some don’t like what Donald Trump is doing.

Trump’s actions have been, shall we say, different, unusual, unconventional, compared to other recent presidents. And, his political philosophy is undoubtedly in conflict with some career bureaucrats and political appointees. Some of them have no doubt made their differences known, directly or indirectly.

It is a president’s option to replace any or all political appointees, and many have done so. The Washington Post reported the following: “The incoming Obama administration has notified all politically-appointed ambassadors that they must vacate their posts as of Jan. 20, the day President-elect Barack Obama takes the oath of office, a State Department official said.”

The Atlantic reported the day before Trump’s swearing in, however, that his administration would keep more than 50 Obama administration appointees in place temporarily. This was perhaps done due to the slow process of getting new appointees through the confirmation process, and thinking the hold-overs would behave.

Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense in George W. Bush’s administration, had a famous rule that is applicable in such situations: “You go to war with the Army you have — not the Army you might wish you have.” 

But egos magically inflate in Washington politics, and inflated egos often lead to problems in the performance of one’s duties when the ego dwarfs the duty to the president and country.

Given the philosophical differences between Trump and his three predecessors, particularly with Obama’s philosophy, the probability of substantial hostility among some career bureaucrats and appointees to Trump’s policies and methods is great. 

There is no scarcity of federal bureaucrats who have trampled on their professional and ethical responsibilities and engaged in activities that work against their boss, the elected President of the United States.

Some older names are FBI agents Peter Strzok and Lisa Page and their thousands of exchanged emails. James Comey, Director of the FBI from 2013 until his dismissal in May 2017. The as yet unidentified former FBI lawyer accused of altering a document in the application for a FISA warrant. Andrew McCabe, an FBI veteran, former deputy director and former acting director who “lacked candor” in connection with a leak investigation, which means he knowingly provided false information. 

More recently, National Security Council aide Alexander Vindman, State Department diplomats William Taylor Jr. and George Kent, Ambassador Gordon Sondland, former Ukraine Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch, and former National Security Council staffer Fiona Hill. 

The aforementioned generally worked against this president with some colluding to bring him down, and others testified to what they thought, believed, surmised and hoped for. The key factor in the Herculean effort to find collusion, quid pro quo, bribery, obstruction and whatever else they might come up with is missing in action.

First, they claimed Trump was guilty of a quid pro quo. For there to be a “quid pro quo” — a “this” in return for “that” — with the Ukrainian president, the Ukrainian president would have to be aware of both the “this” and the “that.” When “quid pro quo” didn’t garner the expected interest, the Democrats in the House took a poll and found a preferable term: bribery.

The Ukrainians, however, repeatedly insisted that it didn’t happen: their president was unaware that funds were being withheld. Neither bribery nor the quid pro quo happened.