David Warsh, former Boston Globe, now free agent economics columnist, considers Mr Trump's cabinet.
Donald J. Trump seems to be patterning his administration on the Eisenhower model, and why not?  Neither man was a professional politician. Trump is a businessman, a successful real estate developer and television entrepreneur, Eisenhower was a soldier, a victorious wartime commander and president of Columbia University. Both men were caricatured as unsuited to the presidency and, well, dumb. Similarities abound. The big difference is temperament. Ike had his genial grin.  Trump has his imperious scowl and his Twitter account.

As did Eisenhower, Trump is populating his cabinet – its most important positions, at least – with men who made their careers in the military-industrial and banking-finance complexes. Retired Marine Corps General James Mattis has been nominated to be Secretary of Defense; Steven Mnuchin and Gary Cohn, both of Goldman Sachs, as Treasury Secretary and presumed senior economic adviser.
We'll see how that plays out. Mr Eisenhower might have been the prototype of the RINO squish, on current trends. Plus the perpetually fretful E. J. Dionne, who wants squishy, pliable Republicans, has yet to say anything nice about Mr Trump or the people awaiting confirmation as department heads. But I still suspect that the Angry Left is more concerned that Mr Trump and his team will get a few things right than they are that he will make a hash out of everything. That's how some of these people reacted to Mr Reagan's "evil empire" speech, years ago. They had their temper tantrums, Yuri Andropov had a stroke, and Mikhail Gorbachev let the wall be torn down.

Speaking of the Russians, Mr Warsh is having none of the caterwauling about Russian "hacking" the election.  NKVD leaks to Wikileaks, Obama stooges in CIA leak to CNN, your dog takes a leak on the fire hydrant.
The new CIA report is a leak from an administration clearly disappointed that Hillary Clinton didn’t win the election. You don’t have to be as dismissive as Trump to remember that CIA analysts have done a poor job generally of keeping track of the former Soviet Union over the decades, having first overestimated its economic strength, then failed to foresee the empire’s collapse.
There's more at the link, but follow it quickly as Mr Warsh's columns wind up as nameless numbers on a list that was later misplaced.  Plus a Harper's guy (yes, that Harper's) suggests that Mr Trump might be right.

Losing skippers blame everyone and everything but themselves.  So let it be with the Hillary campaign.

No comments: