The list of Cabinet and senior White House staff members who are disgruntled, at odds with the president and/or biding their time before they escape — Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, Chief of Staff John F. Kelly, Defence Secretary Jim Mattis, senior economic adviser Gary Cohn — has grown with the realisation that President Donald Trump is incapable of changing his basic personality.
The Washington Post reports that Mattis and Cohn didn’t exactly dispel rumours that they were serving despite Trump, rather than because of him. Mattis explained, “You know, when a president of the United States asks you to do something, I come. I don’t think it’s an old-fashioned school at all, I don’t think it’s old-fashioned or anything. I don’t care if it’s Republican or Democrat; we all have an obligation to serve. That’s all there is to it.” Moreover, he argued that Trump is persuadable on key issues. (“We disagreed on three things in my first 40 minutes with him, on Nato, on torture and something else, and he hired me. This is not a man who’s immune to being persuaded if he thinks you’ve got an argument.”)
Unpacking that, we see three very critical reasons for Mattis to remain as long as humanly possible. First, he is uniquely capable of directing Trump away from dangerous, unacceptable positions. Until Mattis, Trump was fixated on the idea of using torture; Mattis saved him, our military and the country from action that would have violated international norms and basic human decency. Second, Mattis deals with positions that are matters of high importance — national security and human rights. With due respect to the other Cabinet posts, this is arguably the most important because it concerns the survival of the country.
And third, while Mattis does not say so, it is hard to think of too many people who could do what he does. Frankly, Mattis stands between us and international catastrophe. He has managed better than any Cabinet official to avoid the Trump taint by refusing to defend the indefensible and operating with a significant degree of independence.
Then there is Cohn. He’s anguished privately and publicly about Trump’s grossly unacceptable Charlottesville remarks. As a Jew and an American, he’s someone who has persuaded himself to remain with someone who said there were some “fine” people among the neo-Nazis chanting, “Jews won’t replace us.” (By the way. to those who foolishly defend him from entirely justified criticism that he is acting as a “court Jew” on the grounds that “Well, no one thought Jews who served under President Barack Obama after the Iran deal should have left,” let’s remember that Trump is endorsing anti-Semites, not taking a foreign policy position on which there can be reasoned debate.)
So why does Cohn, who finds Trump’s defence of anti-Semites and white nationalists abhorrent, think he should remain? He says, “Look, tax cuts are really important to me. I think it’s a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity.” Really, that’s it?
This is self-delusion of the worst kind. To begin with, no one thinks Cohn is the only man who can deliver tax reform. That will be primarily the job of Congress, and within the administration surely Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin is capable of handling matters. Moreover, it is far from clear that tax reform (which amounts to big tax cuts for the rich) will — or even should — get done this year. And finally, tax cuts when the economy hums along involve nowhere near the urgency of avoiding a catastrophic international incident. Cohn is deceiving himself if he thinks his continued presence in this administration can be morally justified. If he left tomorrow, nothing much would change.
In sum, those administration members who are essential to protect the country from Trump can be counted on the fingers of one hand. The rest are staying because their egos tug them to the highest levels of power. They are enablers and therefore morally culpable for the actions the president takes.
— Washington Post
Jennifer Rubin writes the Right Turn blog for the Washington Post, offering reported opinion from a conservative perspective
