On Qualification for Cabinet Positions

A general conversation and a lot of specifics about RFK. Jr.

“Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Health Freedom Rally Times Square Oct 18” by Pamela Drew is licensed under CC BY-NC 2.0

So, there has been a lot of talk about qualifications for various executive appointments. This, in many ways, is a fully subjective exercise. I will note from the onset that “subjective” does not mean that there is simply no way to differentiate between the quality of given nominees, but simply that there is room for reasonable differences. I do think that it should be obvious to any reasonable observer when a given candidate is either highly qualified or not qualified in some substantive way. Of course, making such judgments requires a certain level of understanding of a given job, as well as that job’s relative importance.

Let’s start with the basic constitutional requirement for the positions in question: there are none. We find in Article II:

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

Basically, the president nominates and if the Senate approves, the nominee is “qualified” in that sense of the term. For what it is worth, the words “cabinet” and “department secretary” do not appear in the US Constitution. Congress creates the departments.

The lack of formal requirements immediately muddies the waters. Most jobs require specifics, like a master’s degree, or experience doing X, Y, or Z, but for these appointments, but that is not how these jobs work.

As a general matter, what do I expect out of executive branch nominations?

I expect that a person being appointed to one of these positions has some combination of experience dealing with managing large bureaucracies, extensive governmental experiences, and some connection if not actual expertise in the policy area in question.

I will admit that I have a bias toward as much policy connectivity as possible, but also can balance that off with proven appropriate managerial acumen. I have a deep and definitive preference for expertise. I think that we are better off if appointees have both the appropriate leadership/managerial skills needed to run a large organization and some level of true expertise relevant to the job.

There is also the significance of the jobs itself. Some appointments are simply more significant than others. The Department of Defense is more important than the Department of Housing and Urban Development, for example.*

Additionally, when it comes to Trump appointees, I am skeptical that there is much consideration at all to any of this. As such, I am skeptical about the entire group of picks because it seems the main considerations are a combination of appearing on TV and personal loyalty to Trump (not the office, not the Constitution, him as a person).

I will further note that, as someone who for many years was in the middle of the hiring process, a minimally qualified person is often inadequate, and the question is not “Does this candidate meet the minimum threshold?” but “Can we get someone better?”

So, I would put Trump’s nominees into three broad baskets: the qualified, the minimally qualified, and the unqualified. Based, again, on their resumes and the jobs themselves keeping in mind that there are a lot of potential candidates.

In the first category, I have repeatedly noted Marco Rubio for State to be a perfectly normal pick.** CBS has the current list of picks here. Astute readers will note that I have not commented on most of them. Other normie picks include Elise Stefanik for UN ambassador, Huckabee for ambassador to Israel, Tom Homan for “border czar,” Brendan Carr for FCC chairman, and Michael Waltz for NSA. I have opinions about the quality of some of those picks and/or significant policy disagreements, but these are all normie picks insofar as they are some combination of political payback and policy congruence.

If I am feeling charitable, Noem for DHS and McMahon for COE are minimally qualified, with McMahon at least having some experience in the executive branch overseeing the Small Business Administration. And Noem was governor of a state, which is legitimate executive experience.

But, I have called both of them unqualified. Why?

Noem has a resume (state legislative, US House of Representatives, Governor of SD) that is enough to suggest a cabinet position (not unlike Doug Burgum to the Interior). However, not only do I think that the DHS Secretary needs a stronger resume than Noem’s, but I find that her own assertions in her book that her willingness to put down a puppy shows she is a person of action (there was also the goat story, via the link). I think anyone who thinks that cruelty is a sign of leadership is unqualified for more power, especially in a position like DHS. I think she will enable the kinds of cruelty towards immigrants being advocated by people like Homan, Miller, and Trump. My guess is that she will be confirmed.

Regarding McMahon, let me note that the current Secretary of Education, Miguel Cardona, holds three degrees in education, taught in public schools, and worked in state-level education administration. That is what a highly qualified candidate looks like. McMahon’s resume is better suited to other areas. Then you have things like (via USAT), this: Trump’s education secretary nominee once said she had an education degree. She doesn’t. and this (via The Hill: Trump’s education pick Linda McMahon accused of negligence in WWE child sexual abuse lawsuit). It is not unreasonable to assert a better candidate could be found. I do expect that she will be confirmed.***

The main ones in the absolutely unqualified category are Hegseth, Gabbard, and RFK, Jr.

Again, in terms of legal/constitutional qualifications, they all are “qualified.” But by that definition, so am I, but I assure you that while I have more managerial experience than Hegseth, I should not be put in charge of the Pentagon.

Hegseth should be obvious. Yes, he’s a veteran, but that is far from enough. His main qualification is being a TV host. He has no experience with running a small organization, let alone a large one. That doesn’t even get into his retrograde views on women in combat, the tattoos, and his sexual assault allegation (not to mention his general character, not that that seems to matter to the GOP any longer).

I know that Gabbard served in Congress and is a veteran, having served in combat. Those items are not enough to be the Director of National Intelligence, not by a longshot. She has no managerial experience of relevance and she has no training or expertise in intelligence. Worse, she sounds like a paid propagandist for Putin. I am not saying she is. Indeed, I assume that she isn’t, but the way she talks on the subject of Ukraine sounds like a Kremlin spokesperson. Now, so do Trump and some of his allies, so maybe this is a feature and not a bug for him. Regardless, running ODNI is a big and very important job. She is not prepared to do it and if she gets the job our allies will be very reluctant to share intelligence with us the way that has been the norm for decades (and that is understating the situation).

An important part of my overall view of the “qualifications” of specific individuals chosen reflects not just their own resumes, but what they say about the choser and the overall tapestry being woven by the selections. For example, in a more normal administration, someone like McMahon, for example, would be the poor quality pick that is explained away by her political work for a pro-Trump PAC.

There have to be pro-Trump Republicans who have adequate experience and who know things about DOE, DHS, DoD, and the ODNI who can be appointed. Instead, we are being given people who objectively are underqualified, if not grossly so in some cases.

All of this brings me to Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.

I had been thinking about this already and then I saw this piece in PJ Media: You’ll Need to Hit the Showers for a ‘Sanewash’ After This Ridiculous RFK Hit Piece.

Setting aside the profound irony that the piece is an attempt to sanewash Kennedy, I would note that it fits a broader pattern wherein I am seeing pro-Trump partisans finding themselves not only defending this pick but often parroting RFK, Jr.’s talking points.

For example, Senator Mullin (R-OK):

Here’s Howard Lutnick, part of the transition team, starting at around the :30 mark spouting RFK, Jr.’s rhetoric about vaccines and autism. This is rapidly becoming, if not has already become, mainstream in the GOP.

As I have noted more than once, I am old enough (and I know a lot of our readers are old enough) when there was this list of things called “childhood diseases” that most people could expect to get as children (and that many people in the past died from). Prominent examples were mumps, measles, chicken pox, and whooping cough. I had both mumps and chicken pox as a kid. They were no fun. I knew lots of kids who got one or all of those diseases. By the time my kids (who are now all in their 20s) were kids, these diseases were largely unheard of. Why? Because of vaccines.

My mother-in-law had polio as a child. But that disease has been effectively eliminated. Why? Vaccines.

Smallpox, same deal. Vaccines!!

The only reason we can convince ourselves that none of this matters is because if you are in your forties or younger, all of this talk sounds like scurvy and the plague–i.e., echos of some bygone ancient era.

And autism rates are up primarily because we have diagnostic tools that we used to not have.****

And here’s Senate-elect Jim Banks (R-IN) doing something similar.

The clip references the current HHS Secretary, Xavier Becerra, which is a good segway back to the PJ Media article, which tries to assert that Kennedy is more qualified than Becerra.

It is an odd and poorly constructed piece and spends a substantial amount of time engaging in anti-trans bigotry aimed at Rachel Levine, currently an assistant secretary of HHS. (BTW, if you are looking for the resume of someone qualified to serve, Levine’s is a great one).

Here’s the opening paragraph:

America’s left just lost an election in which voters overwhelmingly rejected their current fad: that it is perfectly normal for men to be surgically converted into women, use women’s bathrooms and locker rooms, and compete against women on the sports pitch or in the ring. They could be chest feeding birthing persons for all we know. 

So, yeah, not exactly a masterpiece in calm reason. Moreover, while it ostensibly defends Kenendy, it never actually does a good job of arguing in favor of Kennedy.

I’ll stipulate that RFK Jr. may not be the best candidate for HHS that ever was. But making the argument that Rachel Levine, a doctor who wears a skirt and claims men can be women, and Xavier Becerra, an attorney, are better is downright crazy talk.

So, here are some highlights of Levine’s career.

  • Holds an MD from Tulane.
  • She is a professor of pediatrics and psychiatry at the Penn State College of Medicine.
  • Served as the secretary of the Pennsylvania Department of Health (2017 to 2021).

So, if you are looking for a good example of what “qualified” looks like, look at Levine. If you think she is unqualified because she is trans, then you might be a bigot (well, actually, there ain’t no “might” about it). Moreover, if you think RFK, Jr. is more qualified than Levine, your judgment is not to be trusted.

Becerra strikes me as a solid, if unremarkable, pick for Secretary of HHS, and he is radically more qualified than Kennedy. Becerra’s Congressional career placed him on appropriate committees of significance to HHS and his time as AG of California gave him executive-level experience overseeing a large bureaucracy. Is his resume as overwhelmingly impressive as Levine’s? No. But, of course, if the assistant secretaries have resumes like Levine’s, then all you need from the Secretary is appropriate knowledge and managerial experience.*****

Let me remind everyone that Kennedy has no experience with the federal government or in managing a large institution. Those two facts alone make him a poor pick. His off-the-wall views on a host of health-related issues make him utterly unqualified. Forbes provides a list of RFK Jr.’s Conspiracy Theories: Here’s What Trump’s Pick For Health Secretary Has Promoted. Add also, via Newsweek, What RFK Jr Has Said About Chemtrails Conspiracy Theory.

The evidence is overwhelming that Kennedy lacks sufficient grounding in reality to be trusted with any position of power, let alone to be put in charge of anything, let alone Health and Human Services.

To return to the point from above, if you find yourself having to defend the pick of Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. as a qualified pick, you might just be a hack who is allowing partisan allegiance to override your better judgment. Also: if you frame your whole piece around disrespecting Rachel Levine for no good reason, you are a bigot (doubly so if your bigotry leads you to assert that RFK, Jr. is more qualified than she is).

Part of why I am concerned about the qualifications of these picks both individually and as a group is because I fear that the generally poor nature of the picks is driving downward definitions of “normal” and “qualified”–especially for high-level picks (again, DoD, AG, DHS, HHS, ODNI). As such, it is not just about specific picks, but the cumulative effect of it all. The first Trump administration was bad enough. Thus far, this one is looking far worse. Truly terrible picks like Gaetz (even if withdrawn) just allow anyone else to look better. And when co-partisans and defenders of the administration can argue with a straight face that Bobby Kennedy is qualified, we are in trouble if we think that the government is actually supposed to govern.


*I thought, for example, that appointing Ben Carson to run HUD in the first Trump administration was a mismatch. Carson knew nothing about that area of policy. Indeed, here’s what I wrote in December of 2016: Ben Carson to Head HUD. I believe that is the only post on that subject from me. James and the late Doug Mataconis wrote quite a bit more about Carson. I did see some posts from me from 2015 about his presidential run. I was never a fan of Carson’s, insofar as he seemed to know a lot about brain surgery and very little about anything else. I could have seen him as Surgeon General. He did not have the managerial background, IIRC, to be in charge of any department. HUD, however, is low down the list.

**I am not thrilled that Rubio used to be an ardent opponent of Trump who Trump ridiculed, called names, and subsequently, Rubio acts like a lap dog. But that isn’t about qualifications, per se, but instead about the loyalty-to-Trump issue.

***Without getting even deeper into the McMahon pick, I would note this piece in Inside Higher Ed: Trump Picks McMahon as Education Secretary.

Picking McMahon, a wealthy executive with little experience in education, is a move reminiscent of Trump’s first term, when he appointed Betsy DeVos as education secretary. DeVos, a billionaire philanthropist known for her support of school choice, voucher programs and charter schools, was a controversial candidate whose confirmation required then–vice president Mike Pence to cast a tie-breaking vote in her favor.

Also,

Trump said that McMahon will bring decades of leadership experience as well as a “deep understanding of both Education and Business” to empower the next generation of students and workers. The president-elect also reiterated his campaign pledge to get rid of the Education Department.

She has very limited experience with education and I don’t think, contrary to a lot of the conventional wisdom, that experience in business is a Rosetta Stone that unlocks a person’s ability to run any organization.

****Without getting into details, I have direct experience with a family member and spectrum disorders. Also, my wife taught for a few years at a school that specialized in students with those issues. I am no expert, but know more about this topic than the average bear.

*****And in RFK’s HHS, we have things like putting a TV character in charge of CMS.

FILED UNDER: US Politics, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Steven L. Taylor
About Steven L. Taylor
Steven L. Taylor is a retired Professor of Political Science and former College of Arts and Sciences Dean. His main areas of expertise include parties, elections, and the institutional design of democracies. His most recent book is the co-authored A Different Democracy: American Government in a 31-Country Perspective. He earned his Ph.D. from the University of Texas and his BA from the University of California, Irvine. He has been blogging since 2003 (originally at the now defunct Poliblog). Follow Steven on Twitter and/or BlueSky.

Comments

  1. Matt Bernius says:

    Assuming that the majority of these picks go through, I expect we will quickly hear lots of details about how “the deep state” is preventing them from enacting Trump’s policies. And people predisposed to being anti-civil servants will see this as proof of a vast conspiracy against Trump.

    Ultimately, I suspect (as with the first Trump administration) that much of the resistance will come down to the qualifications issue you wrote about. The crafting of policy is part of the act of governing and the reality is that people without experience operating within organizations like these often (a) don’t understand the existing restrictions for policy development and (b) are unwilling to learn how to work within those constraints.

    Now, some of those issues may be mitigated by all the work Heritage did with the Project 2025 planning. And despite Trump’s bald-faced lies on the campaign trail, his administration will be enacting a LOT of that plan simply because he’s staffing it with the Project 2025 authors and staff members who have been through Project 2025 “boot camps” that Heritage has been running for a while.

    That said, some of the plan’s ideas are still untested bureaucratic “hacks” and might not survive court scrutiny.

    Also, FWIW, it’s entirely possible that for some of these departments, the lack of qualification of these candidates could even screw up Heritage’s plans–especially if they lack the patience and attention to detail to follow through on those outlines.

    6
  2. Gustopher says:

    The Department of Defense is more important than the Department of Housing and Urban Development, for example.*

    We have a housing crisis in this country. Since the 2008 Great Recession, we have been building housing units at a slower rate than population growth.

    Given that we haven’t built enough housing anywhere, I would treat this more as a nationwide problem than 50 individual state problems.

    In the other hand, Trump wants to get rid of the Department of Education, so that would seem to be an excellent spot to put the most useless person who needs a job. Linda McMahon seems more than qualified… as would RFKJr, you or even me. Maybe Barron needs a summer job.

    (I will now step off my housing soapbox, and go back to reading the rest of your post)

    7
  3. Flat Earth Luddite says:

    we are in trouble if we think that the government is actually supposed to govern.

    Well, considering that the purpose isn’t to govern, but to burn the institutions, and indeed, the country (IMO) to the ground, this seems to be working to plan.

    Indeed, a textbook example of task, condition, and standard.

    8
  4. Just nutha ignint cracker says:

    @Gustopher:

    The Department of Defense is more important than the Department of Housing and Urban Development, for example.*

    We have a housing crisis in this country. Since the 2008 Great Recession, we have been building housing units at a slower rate than population growth.

    Given that we haven’t built enough housing anywhere, I would treat this more as a nationwide problem than 50 individual state problems.

    Alas, neither the left nor the right has agreed with you to any significant degree since the housing projects of the post-war era, which were largely built, initially, to provide housing for thousands and thousands of returning military personnel and their rapidly forming war-bride driven families. On the other hand, relegating the problem to the 50 individual states does alleviate the nation of the need to address the problem. States that have a problem with underhoused populations can solve the problem in the time honored way–by banning camping in alleyways and declaring homelessness illegal. Problem solved!

    5
  5. Kathy says:

    It’s the Dunning–Kruger cabinet for spiteful idiots.

    5
  6. gVOR10 says:

    Worse, she (Gabbard) sounds like a paid propagandist for Putin. I am not saying she is. Indeed, I assume that she isn’t,

    Not directed at you, I see that line as kind of a pro forma disclosure, but this touches on a pet peeve of mine. We hear the phrase “innocent until proven guilty” so often I think people see it not as a rule for certain situations, but as some underlying principle of the universe. If there is the slightest possibility it’s true, shouldn’t that disqualify from being DNI? Or at least trigger a thorough FBI examination of her finances?

    And obviously I’m more concerned about a CinC who has suspicious ties with Russia.

    I’ll add that Marginal Revolution linked to, and reminded me of, Ross Douthat’s recent column offering up Three Theories of the Trump Cabinet. It strikes me that trying to find rhyme and reason in what Trump does is a fool’s errand, making Douthat the perfect man for the job.

    3
  7. de stijl says:

    @gVOR10:

    It isn’t deep. It’s just people he’s seen on his TV.

    Trump nominates TV people he’s seen and likes the cut of their jib on the most surface level possible. He likes people who feign unearned dominance.

    2
  8. @gVOR10:

    If there is the slightest possibility it’s true, shouldn’t that disqualify from being DNI? Or at least trigger a thorough FBI examination of her finances?

    Absolutely!!

    I am being cautious because I try very hard not to make accusations without evidence. But given the way she talks, I would not at all be surprised if a link existed.

    I probably should have said “I operate as if she isn’t” instead of “I assume she isn’t.”

    But this cuts to one of the points I was trying to make: the appointments are not about the minimally qualified. There are highest stakes than that.

    4
  9. de stijl says:

    @Matt Bernius:

    It’s probably most about unaptness, ineptitude, and the general lack of understanding how agencies work.

    They serve the public fairly uninterrupted through every Presidency. They are civil servants. They maintain and try to advance the mission. Trump (and cronies) thinks he can politicize them all by dint of will because he says so. And will fire anyone who disagrees. Doesn’t comply.

    Dr. Taylor doesn’t want us to use the word “fascism” irt Trump and his co-horts. Re-ordering civil service to serve one party’s interests is highly, disturbingly troublesome. Is fascist adjacent acceptable?

    2
  10. Gustopher says:

    To return to the point from above, if you find yourself having to defend the pick of Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. as a qualified pick, you might just be a hack who is allowing partisan allegiance to override your better judgment.

    You might also be an antivaxxer lunatic, or otherwise have a pro-measles agenda. In that case, RFKJr might be the most qualified person who would favor your policy choices about spreading communicable diseases.

    I might suggest Joe Ladapo, the Florida Surgeon General, but he has a possibly disqualifying skin condition. Plus, I think RFKJr may be stronger in his support for supplements rather than medicine in general, as Ladapo does have a PhD in Health Policy from Harvard.

    5
  11. Gustopher says:

    @Steven L. Taylor: Without evidence of a specific quid pro quo, I don’t think we should assume Tulsi Gabbard is a paid Russian propagandist.

    She might be doing it for free.

    She may also be a victim of Russian propaganda, which she earnestly repeats. I would hope that she is more educated on this issues than my brothers, but that is merely a hope.

    (My brother was claiming that Zelenskyy was a Nazi, and when I pointed out that he is Jewish, he replied that Hitler was also Jewish. I know a mind is a terrible thing to waste, but my brother really should take up video games or pot or something.)

    7
  12. al Ameda says:

    @gVOR10:

    I’ll add that Marginal Revolution linked to, and reminded me of, Ross Douthat’s recent column offering up Three Theories of the Trump Cabinet. It strikes me that trying to find rhyme and reason in what Trump does is a fool’s errand, making Douthat the perfect man for the job.

    I regret the time I spent reading Douthat’s column this morning.
    I will never get those 5 minutes back.
    I always regret reading his columns, I know I shouldn’t read them, but give me an op-ed section and I cave in every time.

    5
  13. Just nutha ignint cracker says:

    @Steven L. Taylor: Sadly, minimally qualified is about the apex of what you can expect from the election of Trump (and while standard, I’m inclined to count Rubio as SoS in the same minimally qualified category). But this IS what the people risked voting for a clown. Laissez les consequences roullez.

    3
  14. Just nutha ignint cracker says:

    @al Ameda: I’m still worse than you on this point. I deliberately read Douthat (though not often, not a NYT member/subscriber) just to see what dumb thing he said this time.

    2
  15. de stijl says:

    Mumps sucked. Throat inflammation. Swelling. Couldn’t swallow. For several days.

    RFK, Jr. can fuck off. Old enough to retain memories of how crappy and uncomfortable it was. That might be my first actual memory. Mumps. Pain. Discomfort. Things that used to be free of pain are now painful like swallowing.

    Influencers in the near future might be pitching mumps as a weight loss thing.

    3
  16. wr says:

    @gVOR10: “It strikes me that trying to find rhyme and reason in what Trump does is a fool’s errand, making Douthat the perfect man for the job.”

    Douthat’s sole concern in life is that sluts not be allowed to have sex and to make sure they are punished if they do. Everything else is a mask for that.

    2
  17. @de stijl:

    Dr. Taylor doesn’t want us to use the word “fascism” irt Trump and his co-horts.

    Not at all. I think the term is apt. I just understand the quandary it presents.

    2
  18. de stijl says:

    @Just nutha ignint cracker:

    Our town just passed a law this summer that essentially makes homelessness illegal. The cops don’t really care. They have more meaningful shit to respond to.

    It’s essentially non-compliance. A few camps down by the river got shut down. Those that were basically meth gangs. Mostly, nothing. I work at the big shelter downtown. No big influx.

    I’m happily surprised. I expected a purge. The cops didn’t care. Very much. Yes, being homeless and sleeping on a bench is technically illegal, but so is jaywalking. As long as you don’t bother anybody, who cares?

    You can’t will homelessness away by decree. That is childish thinking.

    3
  19. Skookum says:

    I think Trump just wants a bunch of empty shirts or political enemies in these positions so Bannon, Miller, Project 2025 can tell them what to do and blame them for the results.

    Hitler never personally killed anyone in WWII, but he was very good at getting others doing his dirty work. Kind of like an Ouija board.

    Not that Trump is Hitler, etc., etc., etc.

    1
  20. de stijl says:

    @de stijl:

    Well, not non-compliance, but proper prioritization. A sleeping person is definitionally not a threat.

    Sleeping on a bench downtown is less salient to law and order than drunk guys fighting in a bar. And way less fun.

  21. de stijl says:

    @Just nutha ignint cracker:

    I think I prefer unqualified idiots in a Trump cabinet. Qualified insiders would be much more troubling.

    I’m betting a lot on bureaucratic inertia.

    2
  22. Ken_L says:

    “Becerra’s no better” is the ultimate in vacuous arguments. 49 Republican senators out of 50 opposed his confirmation. Susan Collins was the deciding vote to confirm.

    So PJMedia is effectively arguing that if Biden was allowed to have an unqualified Secretary, Trump should too. It’s the “reasoning” of the elementary school playground.

    3
  23. Kathy says:

    @de stijl:

    What if the felon or his “advisors” decide they can overcome inertia by firing a lot of civil servants?

    Remember when Reagan fired thousands of striking air traffic ontrollers.

  24. de stijl says:

    @Kathy:

    Then we’re fucked.

    2
  25. Just nutha ignint cracker says:

    @de stijl: Roughly 10,000 unhoused in Portland. More if you count underhoused–couch surfers, etc. That’s in a population of ~650k. The new administration has a policy they are calling “A Time and a Place.” Homeless and the agencies that serve them are saying the problem is that the secret to the program is that the time is “not now” and the place is “not here.” On the other hand, the mayor and new council ran on the pledge that they would find places for all 10,o00 unhoused people by the end of 2025 because they are going to eliminate the waste, abuse, and bottlenecks in the system by which the city addresses the problem.

    And this is in “The People’s Republic of Portland.” (I fear for the reputation of Marxism.)

    3
  26. Just nutha ignint cracker says:

    @de stijl: I’m concerned that unqualified idiots in the cabinet will be harmful enough combined with true believers in the lower levels (I’m looking at Miller, Homan, Bannon, etc) and a Congress inclined to simply agree with what Trump wants. But this IS what “We teh peepul” voted for. [sigh…]

    ETA: It’ll be an interesting next two years, though–in the Chinese “may you live in interesting times” sense.

    1
  27. Kylopod says:

    @Gustopher:

    My brother was claiming that Zelenskyy was a Nazi, and when I pointed out that he is Jewish, he replied that Hitler was also Jewish.

    1. There’s no evidence Hitler was Jewish.

    2. Zelenskyy isn’t in any way a Nazi.

    3. It’s not unheard of for a Jew to become a Nazi, though they’re unlikely to be accepted by the movement if their identity becomes known. More broadly, there have been borderline Nazi-adjacent groups that have aligned themselves with people of partial Jewish descent, and one notable recent example is Russia’s Wagner Group, co-founded by an open neo-Nazi who named it after Hitler’s favorite composer, and headed for years by Yevgeny Prigozhin, born to a Jewish father, until their death last year in the plane crash Putin had nothing to do with after they challenged his leadership.

  28. SC_Birdflyte says:

    @Gustopher: DonOld doesn’t want to appoint Ladapo to anything because of his connection to Ron DeSantis. It’s all about getting even.

  29. James Joyner says:

    Full concurrence with the above, with one slight quibble:

    [Levine] is an admiral in the United States Public Health Service Commissioned Corps.

    This isn’t a qualification but a consequence of being appointed to the post. She had spent not a second in the PHSCC prior to being confirmed.

    1
  30. Charley in Cleveland says:

    For years now Republicans have told America that “government can’t solve problems; government IS the problem.” Then their candidates get into office and prove their own theory. E.g., George W. Bush naming “Heck of a job Brownie” to run FEMA…a fine inside joke until Hurricane Katrina came along and revealed that Brownie couldn’t find his own ass using both hands. I’m sure RFK Jr. will be equally baffled by the measles epidemic of 2025.

  31. @James Joyner: Thanks for that correction.