Reading this
account of Reince Preibus's short-lived term as White
House Chief of Staff, one does not wonder why Trump brought him on - it was an
olive branch to the Republican Establishment - but how the guy ended up in
charge of the RNC in the first place:
Priebus was hobbled by two other factors. A former Republican
National Committee chairman from Kenosha, Wisconsin, he barely knew his new
boss, and he was part of the establishment that Trump had vilified. Moreover,
during the campaign, the two men had been known to feud. Trump had been especially
resentful of Priebus’s reaction to the campaign’s existential crisis just a
month before Election Day: the release of the tawdry Access Hollywood tape, in
which Trump had made graphic misogynist comments that were caught by an open
microphone.
The morning after the video surfaced, Trump’s candidacy had been pronounced all but dead in the media. In response, the beleaguered nominee’s top aides—campaign C.E.O. Stephen Bannon, former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani, New Jersey governor Chris Christie, Jared Kushner, and Ivanka Trump—gathered at Trump Tower for a war council to advise the candidate on whether he should stay in the race or quit.
The nominee, sleep-deprived, surly, his jaw clenched, posed the crucial question: in light of the videotape, what were his chances of winning? Priebus went first: “If you decide to stay in, you will lose in the biggest landslide in American political history.” One by one, Trump’s other advisers danced around the question—until finally it was Bannon’s turn. “One hundred percent,” he declared. “One hundred percent you’re going to win this thing. Metaphysical.” (Priebus recalled things differently, saying no one was that emphatic.)
Trump, of course, pulled off an astonishing upset. And a month later, McDonough met his successor as chief of staff in the West Wing lobby and escorted him to his office. As the former chiefs went around the table, giving Priebus advice, they were unanimous about one thing: Trump would be unable to govern unless Priebus was empowered as first among equals in the West Wing. Trump’s incoming chief dutifully took notes on a yellow pad.
Suddenly there was a commotion; Barack Obama was entering the room. Everyone stood and shook hands, then Obama motioned for them to sit. The 44th president’s own chiefs—Rahm Emanuel, Bill Daley, Jack Lew, McDonough, and Pete Rouse (who served unofficially)—were all present, and Obama nodded toward them. “Every one of these guys at different times told me something that pissed me off,” Obama said, flashing his familiar grin. “They weren’t always right; sometimes I was. But they were right to do that because they knew they had to tell me what I needed to hear rather than what I wanted to hear.” Obama looked at Priebus. “That’s the most important function of a chief of staff. Presidents need that. And I hope you will do that for President Trump.” With that, Obama said his good-byes and departed.
The morning after the video surfaced, Trump’s candidacy had been pronounced all but dead in the media. In response, the beleaguered nominee’s top aides—campaign C.E.O. Stephen Bannon, former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani, New Jersey governor Chris Christie, Jared Kushner, and Ivanka Trump—gathered at Trump Tower for a war council to advise the candidate on whether he should stay in the race or quit.
The nominee, sleep-deprived, surly, his jaw clenched, posed the crucial question: in light of the videotape, what were his chances of winning? Priebus went first: “If you decide to stay in, you will lose in the biggest landslide in American political history.” One by one, Trump’s other advisers danced around the question—until finally it was Bannon’s turn. “One hundred percent,” he declared. “One hundred percent you’re going to win this thing. Metaphysical.” (Priebus recalled things differently, saying no one was that emphatic.)
Trump, of course, pulled off an astonishing upset. And a month later, McDonough met his successor as chief of staff in the West Wing lobby and escorted him to his office. As the former chiefs went around the table, giving Priebus advice, they were unanimous about one thing: Trump would be unable to govern unless Priebus was empowered as first among equals in the West Wing. Trump’s incoming chief dutifully took notes on a yellow pad.
Suddenly there was a commotion; Barack Obama was entering the room. Everyone stood and shook hands, then Obama motioned for them to sit. The 44th president’s own chiefs—Rahm Emanuel, Bill Daley, Jack Lew, McDonough, and Pete Rouse (who served unofficially)—were all present, and Obama nodded toward them. “Every one of these guys at different times told me something that pissed me off,” Obama said, flashing his familiar grin. “They weren’t always right; sometimes I was. But they were right to do that because they knew they had to tell me what I needed to hear rather than what I wanted to hear.” Obama looked at Priebus. “That’s the most important function of a chief of staff. Presidents need that. And I hope you will do that for President Trump.” With that, Obama said his good-byes and departed.
Why would you ever listen to what someone
said after he had demonstrated such a complete inability to read the electorate
or predict the future? I'm astonished that Trump even pretended to take the
guy's opinion seriously at all.
We have a tendency to believe that those who are around the positions of power must be smarter or more astute than the average individual in some way. We are endlessly lectured on the importance of their gravitas, their credentials, their educations, and their comportment. But the truth is more often than not that they simply happen to have had access to money, power, or influence. It's not just the USA, almost every democracy is run by people who are no more intelligent, and have no better judgment, than those annoying kids that were on your high school student council.
Except the kids you knew on your student council were less arrogant, less sheltered, and less corrupt than the average politico.
We have a tendency to believe that those who are around the positions of power must be smarter or more astute than the average individual in some way. We are endlessly lectured on the importance of their gravitas, their credentials, their educations, and their comportment. But the truth is more often than not that they simply happen to have had access to money, power, or influence. It's not just the USA, almost every democracy is run by people who are no more intelligent, and have no better judgment, than those annoying kids that were on your high school student council.
Except the kids you knew on your student council were less arrogant, less sheltered, and less corrupt than the average politico.
