The Trump Administration: Loyalty Over Experience in Picking Advisors and Cabinet Members

During his presidency, Donald Trump made it clear that his criteria for selecting advisors, staff, and cabinet members were more aligned with loyalty to him than with qualifications, experience, competence, or intelligence. This approach to governance has been a subject of intense debate and analysis, particularly when considering his lack of prior political experience.

Mr. Trump's Criteria for Advisors and Staff

Among the many questions surrounding Trump's approach to governance, one stands out: how did he manage to assemble his team when he had no political experience prior to his presidency? According to his standards, suitability was determined based on loyalty to him alone and the ability to look good on television.

There was no need for qualifications, experience, competence, or intelligence—just unwavering loyalty to Trump. This criterion might seem unconventional in the context of a sophisticated and complex governmental structure like that of the United States.

The Importance of the Deep State

One notable observation about many of Trump's picks is their absence from what is commonly referred to as the "Deep State." The placement of loyalists rather than established government officials allowed Trump to exert more control over various aspects of government. This came with a cost, as many generals and senior members of his cabinet expressed their disagreement with his policies, which he ultimately dismissed.

By placing those who followed his directives unquestioningly, Trump could launch certain actions and initiatives. However, if people chose to follow the rules and laws, it would be much harder to gain control. This dynamic is crucial to understanding the challenges faced during Trump's administration and how his approach impacted governance.

The Role of Television and Political Experience

Another significant factor in Trump's staff selection was their appeal on television. He preferred individuals who looked good on camera and were willing to pledge their loyalty to him, often labeled as "Loser45." This focus on appearance and loyalty often outweighed the need for political experience and expertise.

It is clear that Trump did not value the advice of experts, policy wonks, or those with significant government experience. His administration operated without a coherent policy plan or guiding principles, and he frequently disregarded sound advice that could have been beneficial.

Name Recognition and Reputation

When choosing who would join his cabinet, Trump prioritized name recognition and reputation over actual qualifications. This approach led to the hiring of competent and highly qualified individuals who were then sidelined, their advice ignored. For instance, these staff and cabinet members could have provided valuable insight during challenging governance situations.

The outcome of this strategy was a series of warnings from former members of Trump's team. They warned that he was not only unfit for the presidency but was actively seeking to exploit our security for his own purposes. Despite these warnings, his delusional supporters often refused to acknowledge the reality of the situation.

This phenomenon is reminiscent of a significant historical precedent. Just before World War II, a large percentage of the German population endorsed the leader who would eventually bring about the war. The warning signs were ignored, and history bore the consequences.

It is essential for critical analysis to accompany any governmental decision-making process, ensuring that the well-being of the nation remains at the forefront. The Trump administration's approach underscores the importance of competent leadership and the potential consequences of prioritizing loyalty over expertise in governance.