Trump's Cabinet picks are pan-ideological. What does Trump truly believe?
During the weekend, Donald Trump’s shock and (often) awful Cabinet nominee selection campaign produced another howler, at least from a conservative perspective. I’m referring to the selection of Rep. Lori Chavez-DeRemer to head the Labor Department.
Chavez-DeRemer is what Trump would call a RINO. She’s what I call one of the most liberal Republican members of Congress. Her CPAC rating for 2023 was only 48 (out of 100).
The New York Post editorial board points out that during her one term in Congress (she was defeated earlier this month), Chavez-DeRemer “routinely toed the Big Labor line, co-sponsoring the radical PRO Act and opposing school choice — a cause Trump has fervently embraced.” The PRO Act would overturn right-to-work laws in 27 states, thus forcing workers to pay millions of dollars from their paychecks to labor unions, even if they don’t wish to be represented by a union or to support union political advocacy.
No wonder the selection of Chavez-DeRemer has been applauded by the SEIU, the National Education Association, and the American Federation of Teachers (headed by arch-leftist Randi Weingarten, who has bashed Trump’s education agenda).
In addition, Erick Erickson notes, Chavez-DeRemer has a record of favoring leniency towards the hiring of illegal immigrants. And she has supported the DREAM Act, as well as amnesty for illegal immigrants.
The Department of Labor might seem like a backwater, and compared to high profile Departments like Defense, Homeland Security, State, and Treasury it is. However, as Erickson explains, the Department’s Secretary “plays a vital role.” She has enormous power over workforce regulations, including those related to health care. In addition, the Secretary of Labor has the power to coerce federal contractors into hiring and promoting minority group members regardless of merit, to meet federally mandated “goals and timetables” — quotas, in effect.
I assume that Trump selected the strongly pro-union Chavez-DeRemer to satisfy Sean O’Brien, head of the Teamsters Union. O’Brien did not endorse Trump, but did not endorse Kamala Harris, either. For Trump, that was almost as good as an endorsement.
A promise is a promise. But unless Trump promised specifically to select Chavez-DeRomer, a non-endorsement, even a helpful one, shouldn’t have earned O’Brien a nominee as radically pro-union and anti-school choice as this one.
Will the Senate confirm Chavez-DeRemer? Probably. However, it may take plenty of votes by Democrats to get her over the line.
With the selection of Chavez-DeRemer, it’s fair to say that Trump has the most ideologically diverse Cabinet in recent memory. For example, as Mike Allen and Jim VandeHei of Axios observe, Trump has:
A pro-abortion-rights Kennedy running HHS (RFK Jr.).
A pro-union centrist running Labor (Chavez-DeRemer).
A former elected Democrat as director of national intelligence (Tulsi Gabbard).
A former George Soros adviser, who now promises that Trumponomics will turn around the economy, running the Treasury (Scott Bessent)
We shouldn’t be surprised. Arguably, Trump is the most ideologically diverse president of my long lifetime.
I would put it differently though. In my view, Trump is the least ideological president of my lifetime, with only Richard Nixon giving him a run for that honor.
Being non-ideological isn’t necessary a bad thing. In fact, early indications suggest that Americans, most of whom aren’t very ideological, approve of Trump’s odd mixture of a proposed Cabinet.
However, it’s fair to ask whether Trump has any core beliefs. I think I can identify five.
Trump has convinced himself that he won the 2020 presidential election.
Trump believes the federal bureaucracy is out to undermine him (or worse).
Trump believes that illegal immigration is out of control and should be halted.
Trump believes our European allies and China have played the U.S. for suckers.
Trump believes there should be a very strong presumption against going to war.
In my view, Trump is wrong about the first proposition, but largely right about the other four. I will expand on this in my next post.
Those five "core beliefs" Paul names don't amount to an ideology, because they don't have the coherence of an ideology. They're just a bunch of stuff. After all, this is a man who was pro-life until all of a sudden he wasn't. It's closer to the truth say he has no ideology. The comparison with Nixon is apt. The trouble with a politician's having no ideology is that you can never tell what he's going to do, and that he's driven by other, less noble things.