THE PRESIDENT’S LIEUTENANTS

WORKING IN A SHAME FREE ZONE

It was a sad sight -- President Trump’s top aides, one by one,

shamelessly verifying his calm and stable demeanor after he stormed out of a May 22 infrastructure meeting with Democratic Congressional leaders. The spectacle made us wonder why Trump’s assistants stick with him when faced with such demeaning duty. We have no special insight into this, though all three of us formerly held formal or informal positions beside high level state political leaders. That experience provides a reference point for understanding what seems a humiliating assignment.

In considering why Trump’s top aides, many of whom strike us from afar as at least capable of rationality, remain loyal and will humiliate themselves, we offer three broad explanations. First, we suspect, some act out of self-interest; they care most about keeping their jobs. A second group may work in awe of the aura that goes with holding a White House staff job. Finally, some may have ideological reasons for their attachment to Trump and will pay any price for advancing that ideology, including serving a President who habitually lies and demands participation in, support for, and endorsement of his lies and other destructive behavior. 

Keeping the Job

We know little about the economic circumstances of Trump’s staff people. Though many of his cabinet officers are multi-millionaires, younger staff aides like news secretary

Sanders defending Trump anti-Jewish statement Mar2019

 (Click here to view ABC News video)

Sarah Huckabee Sanders often come from more modest situations. Having a White House staff job may represent a life-long ambition. For a person so motivated, even the likelihood of easily finding another job wouldn’t stop that individual from doing self-demeaning things that assure keeping the dream job.

Someone who grew up in      Republican politics, always hoping they could serve in a presidential administration, might have difficulty leaving a White House staff job, regardless of economic consequences or personal humiliation. For such a person, the question becomes, “How high do I have to jump?” We don’t know how many, or which, of Trump’s aides fall into this category, but we’re sure some must. We certainly saw such people in the political organizations in which we worked.  

The White House Aura

This idea resembles the previous one, but isn’t identical. We saw people taken by the majesty and prestige of working in a governor’s office, so we can only guess how strongly that might motivate in the White House. These people may not have even needed the job; they just wanted the ego boost they got from being around power and seeing themselves at the center of something important. 

We’re reminded of a scene in the very last episode of the award winning television series The West Wing. With the Bartlet Presidency over and a new President inaugurated, Chief of Staff C.J. Cregg walks out of the White House where she encounters a man and his young child. The man asks Cregg, played by Allison Janney, if she works at the White House. She answers, “No. No, I don’t.”  The man shakes his head in awe and says, “Must be something.” That kind of reverence undoubtedly motivates some people, allowing acceptance of even the kind of degrading experience Trump put his staff through after that infrastructure meeting.

Ideology

These people fall into two distinct groups but, conceptually, the

same thing motivates them. Eric Hoffer described them in his famous book, The True Believer.  They hold a rabid commitment to an ideological agenda and nothing else matters much. A single issue motivates some, while support for Trump’s general nationalist ideology drives others. With both groups, Trump’s behavior doesn’t matter, as long as he pushes the agenda.

All of us know people, conservative and liberal, who care so much about a given issue – or set of issues-- they’ll put up with anything

from someone who supports their position. That attitude lets evangelical Christians tolerate Trump’s sexual conduct, see, e.g., the Access Hollywood tape, in exchange for his appointment of

right wing judges they believe will curtail women’s reproductive freedom. We could list other obsessions – clipping the wings of the Environmental Protection Agency,  tax cuts, keeping immigrants out of the United States -- that might justify accepting otherwise objectionable aspects of Trump’s behavior.

Some see this as analogous to the left’s willingness to overlook Bill Clinton’s sexual transgressions and subsequent acts of perjury in the Monica Lewinsky scandal. Woodson finds the analogy applicable. Henry doesn’t, believing the harm Trump is doing to the country places his sins in a unique category. Rob also rejects the analogy, arguing Trump’s requirement that his staff publicly testify to his intelligence and calm demeanor fundamentally differs from the Clinton situation.

Whether or not Bill Clinton’s staff made a similar moral compromise as Trump’s, we recognize all three reasons we’ve offered might entice acquiescence by those in Trump’s orbit to his demands for public endorsements of his conduct. Our reasons are not mutually exclusive. One can want badly to keep one’s job while sticking around because of an ideological commitment; the aura that goes with working in the White House isn’t inconsistent with staying there for either of the other reasons. Regardless of why, Trump’s lieutenants must stand up and salute when the boss demands it, no matter how demeaning doing so appears. The current group seemingly follows his orders without shame. We all agree about one thing. The American public deserves more from its public servants.