This is part of a posting on Tomgram, Feb 6, 2017, (Copyright 2017 Tom Engelhardt)
“We have here in the United States the wealthiest cabinet in our history, a true crew of predatory capitalists, including a commerce secretary nicknamed “the king of bankruptcy” for his skills in buying up wrecked companies at staggering profits; a Treasury secretary dubbed the “foreclosure king” of California for evicting thousands of homeowners, including active-duty military families, from distressed properties he partners picked during the 2008 financial meltdown; and the head of the State Department who only recently led ExxonMobil in its global depredations. As a crew, they and their compatriots are primed to dismantle or reduce the agencies they’ll run or shred their missions. That includes the head of the Environmental Protection Agency, Scott Pruitt, a man long in the pay of big energy, who seems determined to reduce the EPA to a place that protects us from nothing; and a fast-food king who, as the new labor secretary, is against the minimum wage and would love to replace workers with machines.
“And don’t forget the White House, now that it’s a family operation — a combination of a real-estate-based global branding outfit (the Trumps) and a real estate empire (son-in-law Jared Kushner). It’s obvious that decisions made in the White House, but also in government offices in foreign capitals, on the streets of foreign cities, and even among jihadists, will affect the fortunes of those two families. I’m not exactly the first person to point out that the seven Muslim lands included in Trump’s immigration ban included not one in which he has business dealings. As patriarch, Donald J. will, of course, rule the Oval Office; his son-in-law will be down the hall somewhere. Thought about in a certain way, you could say “welcome to Saudi Arabia or Bashar al-Assad’s Syria before the catastrophe”.
“From health care and tax policy to environmental protections, this will undoubtedly be a government of the looters, by the looters, and for the looters, and a Congress of the same. As of yet, however, we’ve seen only the smallest hints of what is to come. In such a leave-no-billionaires-behind era, forget the past swamps of Washington. The government of Donald J. Trump seems slated to produce an American swamp of swamps and, somewhere down the line, will surely give new meaning to the phrase “conflict of interest”. Yet these processes, too, are barely underway. From this government of 1% looters, you can expect but to be looted and to experience crimes of every sort”.
And to make it worse are the suspicions about the (unproven as yet) deal made with Putin – “you help tip the scales of the election, Vlad, and I will……” do what? We are waiting to find out, and surely will, one way or another. And Mr. Engelhardt doesn’t have room to mention the power behind the throne, Bannon, and the damage he is likely to do.
Epicurus was right – politics is a dirty business. But then there is a lot of (our) money at stake. Meanwhile, half the country seems not to care a tinkers’s cuss, indeed, applauds it all. What a come- down from the country I thought I knew.
I’m not sure if I’m entirely comfortable with what Engelhardt is saying. As far as policy is concerned, Trump’s cabinet is terrible. It also doesn’t help that so many of them are so inexperienced in and unknowledgeable of their respective departments and their functions. But Engelhardt goes further. He suggests that because the cabinet disproportionately consists of wealthy individuals, it is more likely to have ill intent. In other words, simply being rich makes you want to screw the poor. He seems to suggest that anyone who evicted people who couldn’t pay their mortgages when the housing market crashed, or anyone who works for an energy company, is somehow inherently exploitative and contemptuous of the common man.
What he doesn’t appreciate is that being in business often involves having to make harsh decisions. Very few employers take pleasure in firing people (Donald Trump perhaps being an exception!), but many have to because there is less demand for their products or services. Equally, its not the case that ExxonMobil or any other energy company wants to make the environment as poor quality as possible. But the fact is, renewables alone cannot yet satisfy our energy needs, and there is still an extremely high demand for oil.
Overall I don’t believe its sensible to have a cabinet so homogeneous in terms of career background. Sure, have a few businessmen and women, but also have teachers, doctors (expect for Ben Carson), academics and others outside the world of business. This would allow policy to be approached from a wider variety of perspectives. Government is not a business, nor should it be treated like one. The one aspect of Engelhardt’s argument I agree with, is business generally doesn’t teach you to be more compassionate. Amongst other things, the government needs to be caring. Or else the result is what they have in Hong Kong: a brilliantly efficient government and a successful economy, but a very high poverty rate and cost of living.