The great contrast in administrations between Trump 1.0 and Trump 2.0 is the difference in the quality of cabinet officers. (Many might wish to skip my list of names as unnecessary or unpleasant reminders; if so, they should skip to the next paragraph.) Key cabinet officers in Trump 1.0 were a mixed bag; with few exceptions, most were marginally qualified, some less so: Rex Tillerson and later Mike Pompeo (State), Steven Mnuchin (Treasury), James Mattis and later Mark Esper (Defense), and Jeff Sessions and later William Barr (Attorney General), Ben Carson (HUD), Wilbur Ross (Commerce), Elaine Chao (Transportation), and Betsy DeVos (Education). Key Cabinet officers in Trump 2.0 include crooked and incompetent loyalists of little or no merit: among others, Kristi Noem (Homeland Security), Pete Hegseth (Defense), Robert F. Kennedy (Health and Human Services), Pam Bondi (Justice), Scott Bessent (Treasury), and Linda McMahon (Education). (Stephen Miller, a racist and xenophobe, is a senior adviser.)
The significant fact about such cabinet officers is that all were not only nominated by Trump, but also confirmed by the Senate. In Trump 2.0, Trump nominated them because of their loyalty to himself, not any particular qualifications for the position. Indeed, in some cases—Noem, Hegseth, and Kennedy—, he seems to have nominated them because they were not qualified. Most Republican senators confirmed them because they feared Trump’s retribution; a few, like Louisiana Senator Bill Cassidy, trusted the glib assurances of nominees like Robert F. Kennedy.
Fear of Trump does not explain the votes of two Democrats in the case of Markwayne Mullin, nominated by Trump and confirmed by the senate by a 54-45 vote: 52 Republicans and 2 Democrats for, 42 Democrats, 1 Republican, and 2 Independents against.. The two Democratic votes came from Senators John Fetterman and Martin Heinrich. Neither vote was needed for confirmation; on a strictly party line vote, Mullins would have been confirmed 52-47. Heinrich’s vote was an unforced error revealing a lapse in judgment.
Fetterman’s vote is easy to understand; he has become a renegade in his party. In this context of senators’ fear or naivete, Heinrich’s is not. Heinrich explained his vote in a written statement:
This is going to surprise some people, but I consider Markwayne Mullin a friend. We have a very honest and constructive working relationship. We have authored legislation together, such as the Tribal Buffalo Management Act, and we crafted the Legislative Branch Appropriations bill together this year. We often disagree and when we do, we work to find whatever common ground we share.
I have also seen first-hand that Markwayne is not someone who can simply be bullied into changing his views, and I look forward to having a Secretary who doesn’t take their orders from Stephen Miller.
For five years, under this and the previous Trump Administration, I have lacked any constructive relationship with the Secretary of Homeland Security. This is despite my state being home to hundreds of TSA, CBP and Border Patrol constituents and many miles of the U.S./Mexico border. I want someone who recognizes the necessity of judicial warrants, as he has. I would like a Secretary who I can call and have a constructive conversation with about my state and the unique terrain that exists in the southwest and the proper mix of structure, technology and personnel necessary to effectively secure our border.
Heinrich’s explanation is feeble and flawed. That Heinrich regards Mullin as a friend because they have worked together in the Senate is not remarkable; many senators work with other senators on a friendly basis to advance legislation of mutual interest. Such collaboration between equals is no assurance that it will persist when one becomes a department secretary or when the issues are different and not the kind on which they have agreed and worked collaboratively. That one senator cannot bully another—or, at least, Heinrich cannot bully Mullin—is no assurance that Trump (or Miller acting for him) cannot bully Mullin, as Trump (or Miller) has bullied so many others, department secretaries included. If Heinrich thinks that he can get something accomplished by pushing his friendship with Mullin, Mullin can reply that, if Heinrich were his friend, he would not be pushing him into a tough spot with Trump (or Miller).
Heinrich’s explanation smacks of the usual personality-based, good-ol’-boy politicking which has done so little good in the confirmation of disastrous and dangerous department secretaries. Heinrich’s standards of selection leading him to support Mullin’s confirmation disregard his record. Mullin is a MAGA hardliner as befits his reputation for having “anger issues.” He supports the ICE agent who killed Renee Good and Trump’s immigration policies. Although he agreed to end administrative warrants used by ICE to enter peoples’ homes and make arrests, warrants recently declared unconstitutional, and other ICE abuses, he was evasive in his confirmation hearing about two critically important matters: whether he would stop pursuing the Administration’s quota of 3000 daily and indiscriminate arrests, and whether he would refuse to obey unlawful orders from Trump. In short, Heinrich let his personal feelings about and senatorial relationship with Mullin outweigh his responsibility to judge Mullin’s qualifications and his positions on national issues from a perspective of his likely service to national as opposed to political, especially Trump’s, interests.
Like all those who have voted for Trump’s nominees for cabinet positions out of fear of Trump, the usual go-along-with the president-to get-along with him, or friendship with his nominees, Heinrich has put these irrelevant considerations above his duty to the welfare of the country in voting to confirm Mullin. Heinrich is indifferent that Mullin’s positions as DHS Secretary will likely reflect his past positions on immigration, elections, and other MAGA issues. Indeed, in response to Trump’s and his political proclivities, Mullin might accelerate the development of detention facilities (aka, concentration camps) and continue to disregard both civil rights and federal standards for such facilities. He might provide ICE officers to patrol areas near voting polls, thereby deterring or intimidating voters, or to disperse voters in the name of controlling long lines, subduing disturbances, or curtailing demonstrations. In their eventuality, Heinrich will no doubt, like Maine Senator Susan Collins, express his “concern”—a lame effort to excuse himself for his feckless vote of confirmation. Although he does not run for reelection until 2030, his vote to confirm Mullin should be remembered and taken into account as a measure of his judgment and his fitness for office.
[Note: Both New Mexico senators rely on answering machines rather than aides to answer their phones. They require that a caller leave a name, number, and message—a requirement which, I believe, discourages constituents from communicating with these elected officials. In fairness, this requirement seems to be standard in the Senate. Happily, NM District 2 Congressman Vasquez’s D.C. office still has human beings answering the phone.]
No comments:
Post a Comment