Tal Black
2024-09-01 19:57:22 UTC
Trump's Arlington Debacle Shows Us How He Will Govern
Five lessons about how a hyper-politicized Trump administration would abuse
power
Don Moynihan
Aug 30, 2024
Former President Trump and his entourage went to Arlington National
Cemetery. The purpose of the visit was to score political points,
portraying the Biden administration as a weak steward of the military. The
actual result was somewhat different; a multi-day media embarrassment
amidst reports that Trumps team ignored clear rules about using Arlington
for campaign purposes, and shoved aside an official who tried to enforce
those rules.
At one level, Arlington is just one more stumble in a campaign that seems
to have lost its way. But its more important than that. I see the incident
through the lens of governance. From that perspective, Arlington is a small
moment that offers a big insight into what a second Trump administration
might look like. And its worth paying attention to it precisely because I
dont think we really has a full sense of how a hyper-politicized
administration would operate. Frankly, I study this stuff and even I cant
predict all of the ways that a partisan model of presidential
administration would seep into every crevice of government. But specific
examples like this one force us to imagine what another, more debased,
version of American government would look like.
The incident offers five takeaways.
1. Public Service as a Joke; Public Servants as Props
Trump has a long record of demeaning public servants. Some of his most
dismissive criticism is reserved for those who served in the military. His
visit to Arlington came after he suggested that government medals awarded
to military officials who were injured or killed in the line of duty had
less value than civilian awards. Trump has also called fallen American
soldiers suckers saying Why should I go to that cemetery? Its filled
with losers. Trump told his Chief of Staff, John Kelly, a veteran who lost
a son in Afghanistan: Look, I dont want any wounded guys in the
parade .It doesnt look good for me. When Trump and Kelly visited his
sons gravesite, Trump said: "I don't get it. What was in it for them?"
Trump sees the political value of military uniforms, without being able to
conceive of the underlying public values they represent. The idea of a
calling to public service is foreign to him, something he cannot fathom. A
military parade is a great way to make his administration looks tough,
unless there are veterans with unsightly injuries. Trump wants to be
surrounded with military generals like Kelly and James Mattis, but as soon
as they question his wisdom they are disparaged as disloyal and
incompetent.
For Trump, the military are useful only as props. Their underlying values
are for suckers.
The purpose of Trumps visit was to use military deaths to embarrass the
Biden-Harris administration. He chose the anniversary of the Kabul bomb
attack to visit the graves of service members who died amidst the
withdrawal from Afghanistan under Biden. This is part of an ongoing
political strategy. For example, the families of some of those lost at
Kabul were brought onstage at the Republican National Convention. Trump
quickly used footage his media team collected at Arlington in a campaign
video that centered on the bombing. At a campaign rally after his Arlington
visit, Trump told his audience that Joe Biden killed their children by
incompetence - should have never happened. Kamala killed their children.
Just as though they had a gun in their hand.
And what about the soldiers who died under Trumps administration? Since
they failed to serve his campaign needs, they did not merit a stop on his
visit.
2. Responsiveness to the President = Lawbreaking
Imagine if your familys gravestone was being used as a prop in a political
campaign you oppose. Seems inappropriate, right? Federal rules seek to
prevent this from happening. An Army statement said that Trumps retinue
were made aware of federal laws, Army regulations and DoD policies, which
clearly prohibit political activities on cemetery grounds. And the rules
are pretty clear. Other media followed a clear directive they could not
visit the Section 60 area where recent casualties are buried. However, the
employee who reminded the Trump campaign team was abruptly pushed aside
and told that those rules did not apply to them according to the Army
statement.
I spend most of my career focusing on administrative burdens created by
unnecessary rules. But the old adage of Herbert Kaufman one mans red
tape is anothers treasured procedural safeguard holds here. The rules
are there for a reason. Another Gold Star family were upset that the
headstone of their loved one was used by Trump, saying in a statement: We
hope that those visiting this sacred site understand that these were real
people who sacrificed for our freedom and that they are honored and
respected accordingly.
Trumps spokespersons defended his actions by noting the some families
welcomed the former President taking graveside pictures with them. But
individual families do not set the rules for Arlington. Presumably the
families that Trump accompanied with would not have been pleased if Joe
Biden or Kamala Harris had turned up, giving a broad thumbs-up and smile
over their relatives gravesite, and then using those images to raise money
or score political points.
Trump could simply have visited the graves in a personal capacity, with the
family, to honor their losses. He had already gotten plenty of images of
him laying a wreath at Arlington earlier in the visit. But the point of the
visit was to create political imagery for a campaign by using the
gravesites of particular soldiers in a way that was clearly forbidden.
In short, Trump wanted to break the law. He was told no. The person who
reminded his team of the law was shoved aside, and the law ignored.
Political scientists often talk about responsiveness as a legitimate
demand for Presidents to make upon the career civil service. And it is. But
this assumes that we are talking about responsiveness to legal and ethical
directives. What Trump has shown, again and again, is his deep belief that
the law or its consequences do not apply to him.
Share
3. The Purpose of Schedule F is to Enable Impunity
Trumps lesson from his time in office is that he did not have enough
appointees or career civil servants who enabled his desire to ignore the
law. His time out of office, including efforts like Project 2025, are
centered on ensuring this does not happen again. He will recruit only
hardcore Trumpists as appointees. It is hard to imagine that Trumps
retinue would have blithely ignored military rules and shoved aside an
Arlington employee if, say, John Kelly, was with them. But as Kelly has
noted: The lesson the former president learned from his first term is
dont put guys like me in those jobs. The lesson he learned was to find
sycophants. These sycophants extend to the lawyers who would invent legal
rationales that the laws do not apply to Trump, a tendency that will be
encouraged by a Supreme Court that has offered Trump presumptive immunity
for his misbehaviors.
This still leaves the pesky civil servants. Here, Schedule F solves the
problem. The executive order would allow Trump to fire public officials he
dislikes. We dont know much about the official who challenged Trumps
retinue, except that she showed a good deal of courage. Trumps campaign
manager, Chris LaCivita, labeled her as despicable saying she does not
deserve to represent the hollowed [sic] grounds of Arlington National
Cemetery. What will happen to her if Trump returns to office?
Many fewer federal employees will stand up for public values in the
knowledge that Trumps team could easily threaten them or their supervisor
for having the temerity to insist that laws apply to everyone. The Army
issued a statement supporting their employee, saying that she acted with
professionalism and was being unfairly attacked. This institutional
pushback against Trumps actions will also be much less likely under
Schedule F, when Trump could simply fire officials who questioned his
behavior.
4. Media Can Get Past Both Sides Coverage
The incident also gives us a hint at what media coverage of such events
might look like in the future. NPR broke that the Arlington official had
reported the incident. Much of the later reporting presented it as a
confrontation between two parties. Many reports included a claim by a Trump
spokesperson, Steven Cheung, that the Arlington official was clearly
suffering from a mental health episode.
Imagine seeing yourself presented as crazy in the New York Times, the
Washington Post and much of the national media. Cheung, like his boss,
routinely lies and there was no reason to platform his evidence-free attack
to a national audience.
If Trump returns to office and has a chance to purge the bureaucracy, we
should expect such purges to be accompanied with baseless smears. This
would have two effects. First, it makes the incident into a matter of
controversy, where the media may faithfully reports both sides. Second, for
public officials who dont want to be labeled as crazy, or traitors, or
members of the deep state, they will be less likely to contest their
dismissals, and in the process, will not reveal wrongdoing.
On a more positive note, almost all we know about this case occurred
because the media told us about it. And the second and third day of the
story was more substantive because more facts were available, and more
veterans weighed in on Trumps disrespect for Arlington. If Trump wins,
this sort of substantive and persistent investigation of abuses of power
will be more and more important.
Thanks for reading Can We Still Govern? This post is public so feel free to
share it.
Share
5. The Future is Terror
The Arlington employee who was manhandled by Trump campaign team chose not
to press charges. Military officials said she was afraid of retribution
from Trump supporters. This reflects one element of modern politics and
governance that I dont think the public or even reporters or researchers
like myself have fully grasped: individual public officials are now making
decisions under conditions of terror.
While we debate the role of formal powers like Schedule F, such powers will
be complemented by informal powers of terror. Public servants will be
afraid to do their jobs, not just because they dont want to lose those
jobs, but because they worry that their lives will be destroyed by fear and
intimidation. At a Michigan rally, Trump dismissed the accusations that he
behaved inappropriately, saying: This all comes out of Washington, just
like all of these prosecutors come out of Washington These are bad people
we're dealing with.
Who could blame the Arlington employee who did not want to become the
target of right-wing media, and Trumps supporters? But what happens when
people like her are no longer willing to enforce the law?
Five lessons about how a hyper-politicized Trump administration would abuse
power
Don Moynihan
Aug 30, 2024
Former President Trump and his entourage went to Arlington National
Cemetery. The purpose of the visit was to score political points,
portraying the Biden administration as a weak steward of the military. The
actual result was somewhat different; a multi-day media embarrassment
amidst reports that Trumps team ignored clear rules about using Arlington
for campaign purposes, and shoved aside an official who tried to enforce
those rules.
At one level, Arlington is just one more stumble in a campaign that seems
to have lost its way. But its more important than that. I see the incident
through the lens of governance. From that perspective, Arlington is a small
moment that offers a big insight into what a second Trump administration
might look like. And its worth paying attention to it precisely because I
dont think we really has a full sense of how a hyper-politicized
administration would operate. Frankly, I study this stuff and even I cant
predict all of the ways that a partisan model of presidential
administration would seep into every crevice of government. But specific
examples like this one force us to imagine what another, more debased,
version of American government would look like.
The incident offers five takeaways.
1. Public Service as a Joke; Public Servants as Props
Trump has a long record of demeaning public servants. Some of his most
dismissive criticism is reserved for those who served in the military. His
visit to Arlington came after he suggested that government medals awarded
to military officials who were injured or killed in the line of duty had
less value than civilian awards. Trump has also called fallen American
soldiers suckers saying Why should I go to that cemetery? Its filled
with losers. Trump told his Chief of Staff, John Kelly, a veteran who lost
a son in Afghanistan: Look, I dont want any wounded guys in the
parade .It doesnt look good for me. When Trump and Kelly visited his
sons gravesite, Trump said: "I don't get it. What was in it for them?"
Trump sees the political value of military uniforms, without being able to
conceive of the underlying public values they represent. The idea of a
calling to public service is foreign to him, something he cannot fathom. A
military parade is a great way to make his administration looks tough,
unless there are veterans with unsightly injuries. Trump wants to be
surrounded with military generals like Kelly and James Mattis, but as soon
as they question his wisdom they are disparaged as disloyal and
incompetent.
For Trump, the military are useful only as props. Their underlying values
are for suckers.
The purpose of Trumps visit was to use military deaths to embarrass the
Biden-Harris administration. He chose the anniversary of the Kabul bomb
attack to visit the graves of service members who died amidst the
withdrawal from Afghanistan under Biden. This is part of an ongoing
political strategy. For example, the families of some of those lost at
Kabul were brought onstage at the Republican National Convention. Trump
quickly used footage his media team collected at Arlington in a campaign
video that centered on the bombing. At a campaign rally after his Arlington
visit, Trump told his audience that Joe Biden killed their children by
incompetence - should have never happened. Kamala killed their children.
Just as though they had a gun in their hand.
And what about the soldiers who died under Trumps administration? Since
they failed to serve his campaign needs, they did not merit a stop on his
visit.
2. Responsiveness to the President = Lawbreaking
Imagine if your familys gravestone was being used as a prop in a political
campaign you oppose. Seems inappropriate, right? Federal rules seek to
prevent this from happening. An Army statement said that Trumps retinue
were made aware of federal laws, Army regulations and DoD policies, which
clearly prohibit political activities on cemetery grounds. And the rules
are pretty clear. Other media followed a clear directive they could not
visit the Section 60 area where recent casualties are buried. However, the
employee who reminded the Trump campaign team was abruptly pushed aside
and told that those rules did not apply to them according to the Army
statement.
I spend most of my career focusing on administrative burdens created by
unnecessary rules. But the old adage of Herbert Kaufman one mans red
tape is anothers treasured procedural safeguard holds here. The rules
are there for a reason. Another Gold Star family were upset that the
headstone of their loved one was used by Trump, saying in a statement: We
hope that those visiting this sacred site understand that these were real
people who sacrificed for our freedom and that they are honored and
respected accordingly.
Trumps spokespersons defended his actions by noting the some families
welcomed the former President taking graveside pictures with them. But
individual families do not set the rules for Arlington. Presumably the
families that Trump accompanied with would not have been pleased if Joe
Biden or Kamala Harris had turned up, giving a broad thumbs-up and smile
over their relatives gravesite, and then using those images to raise money
or score political points.
Trump could simply have visited the graves in a personal capacity, with the
family, to honor their losses. He had already gotten plenty of images of
him laying a wreath at Arlington earlier in the visit. But the point of the
visit was to create political imagery for a campaign by using the
gravesites of particular soldiers in a way that was clearly forbidden.
In short, Trump wanted to break the law. He was told no. The person who
reminded his team of the law was shoved aside, and the law ignored.
Political scientists often talk about responsiveness as a legitimate
demand for Presidents to make upon the career civil service. And it is. But
this assumes that we are talking about responsiveness to legal and ethical
directives. What Trump has shown, again and again, is his deep belief that
the law or its consequences do not apply to him.
Share
3. The Purpose of Schedule F is to Enable Impunity
Trumps lesson from his time in office is that he did not have enough
appointees or career civil servants who enabled his desire to ignore the
law. His time out of office, including efforts like Project 2025, are
centered on ensuring this does not happen again. He will recruit only
hardcore Trumpists as appointees. It is hard to imagine that Trumps
retinue would have blithely ignored military rules and shoved aside an
Arlington employee if, say, John Kelly, was with them. But as Kelly has
noted: The lesson the former president learned from his first term is
dont put guys like me in those jobs. The lesson he learned was to find
sycophants. These sycophants extend to the lawyers who would invent legal
rationales that the laws do not apply to Trump, a tendency that will be
encouraged by a Supreme Court that has offered Trump presumptive immunity
for his misbehaviors.
This still leaves the pesky civil servants. Here, Schedule F solves the
problem. The executive order would allow Trump to fire public officials he
dislikes. We dont know much about the official who challenged Trumps
retinue, except that she showed a good deal of courage. Trumps campaign
manager, Chris LaCivita, labeled her as despicable saying she does not
deserve to represent the hollowed [sic] grounds of Arlington National
Cemetery. What will happen to her if Trump returns to office?
Many fewer federal employees will stand up for public values in the
knowledge that Trumps team could easily threaten them or their supervisor
for having the temerity to insist that laws apply to everyone. The Army
issued a statement supporting their employee, saying that she acted with
professionalism and was being unfairly attacked. This institutional
pushback against Trumps actions will also be much less likely under
Schedule F, when Trump could simply fire officials who questioned his
behavior.
4. Media Can Get Past Both Sides Coverage
The incident also gives us a hint at what media coverage of such events
might look like in the future. NPR broke that the Arlington official had
reported the incident. Much of the later reporting presented it as a
confrontation between two parties. Many reports included a claim by a Trump
spokesperson, Steven Cheung, that the Arlington official was clearly
suffering from a mental health episode.
Imagine seeing yourself presented as crazy in the New York Times, the
Washington Post and much of the national media. Cheung, like his boss,
routinely lies and there was no reason to platform his evidence-free attack
to a national audience.
If Trump returns to office and has a chance to purge the bureaucracy, we
should expect such purges to be accompanied with baseless smears. This
would have two effects. First, it makes the incident into a matter of
controversy, where the media may faithfully reports both sides. Second, for
public officials who dont want to be labeled as crazy, or traitors, or
members of the deep state, they will be less likely to contest their
dismissals, and in the process, will not reveal wrongdoing.
On a more positive note, almost all we know about this case occurred
because the media told us about it. And the second and third day of the
story was more substantive because more facts were available, and more
veterans weighed in on Trumps disrespect for Arlington. If Trump wins,
this sort of substantive and persistent investigation of abuses of power
will be more and more important.
Thanks for reading Can We Still Govern? This post is public so feel free to
share it.
Share
5. The Future is Terror
The Arlington employee who was manhandled by Trump campaign team chose not
to press charges. Military officials said she was afraid of retribution
from Trump supporters. This reflects one element of modern politics and
governance that I dont think the public or even reporters or researchers
like myself have fully grasped: individual public officials are now making
decisions under conditions of terror.
While we debate the role of formal powers like Schedule F, such powers will
be complemented by informal powers of terror. Public servants will be
afraid to do their jobs, not just because they dont want to lose those
jobs, but because they worry that their lives will be destroyed by fear and
intimidation. At a Michigan rally, Trump dismissed the accusations that he
behaved inappropriately, saying: This all comes out of Washington, just
like all of these prosecutors come out of Washington These are bad people
we're dealing with.
Who could blame the Arlington employee who did not want to become the
target of right-wing media, and Trumps supporters? But what happens when
people like her are no longer willing to enforce the law?