It’s hard to keep up with the growing evidence of the horrors Trump plans to implement in a second term, but I wrote about one item that really struck me at New York:
There have been many credible reports that a second Trump administration would feature an assault on the federal civil-service system in order to reduce “deep state” resistance to his authoritarian ambitions — or, to use his terms for it, to “drain the swamp” — while stuffing the higher levels of the federal bureaucracy with political appointees. Those of us who are history-minded have immediately thought of this as threatening a return to the “spoils system” of the 19th century, which was more or less ended by enactment of the Pendleton Civil Service Reform Act of 1883 (signed into law by Republican president and reformed spoilsman Chester Alan Arthur).
But the more we know about Team Trump’s plans, this understanding of what they want to do in staffing the federal government looks increasingly inadequate and anachronistic. The spoils-system beneficiaries of the distant past were by and large party foot soldiers rewarded for attending dreary local meetings, talking up the the party’s candidates in newspapers and forums, and, most of all, getting out the vote on Election Day. No one much cared what they believed in their heart of hearts about issues of the day or how they came to their convictions. It was enough that they put on the party yoke and helped pull the bandwagon to victory.
As Axios reports, one questionnaire used late in the first Trump administration to vet job applicants and another distributed by the Heritage Foundation to build up an army of second-term appointment prospects show a far more discriminating approach:
“The 2020 ‘Research Questionnaire,’ which we obtained from a Trump administration alumnus, was used in the administration’s final days — when most moderates and establishment figures had been fired or quit, and loyalists were flexing their muscles. Questions include:
“’What part of Candidate Trump’s campaign message most appealed to you and why?’
“’Briefly describe your political evolution. What thinkers, authors, books, or political leaders influenced you and led you to your current beliefs? What political commentator, thinker or politician best reflects your views?’
“’Have you ever appeared in the media to comment on Candidate Trump, President Trump or other personnel or policies of the Trump Administration?”
Similar questions are being asked for the Talent Database being assembled by the Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025 — the most sophisticated, expensive pre-transition planning ever undertaken for either party.
The Heritage questionnaire makes it especially clear that being just any old kind of Republican isn’t going to be enough. It asks if applicants agree with a number of distinctively MAGA issue positions, including:
“The U.S. should impose tariffs with the goal of bringing back manufacturing jobs, even if these tariffs result in higher consumer prices. …
“The permanent institutions of family and religion are foundational to American freedom and the common good. …
“The President should be able to advance his/her agenda through the bureaucracy without hinderance from unelected federal officials.”
One insider told Axios that both the 2020 Trump and 2024 Heritage questionnaires have a common and very particular purpose:
“An alumnus of the Trump White House told us both documents are designed to test the sincerity of someone’s MAGA credentials and determine ‘when you got red-pilled,’ or became a true believer. ‘They want to see that you’re listening to Tucker, and not pointing to the Reagan revolution or any George W. Bush stuff,’ this person said”.
This represents a really unprecedented effort to place the executive branch under the direction of people chosen not on the basis of merit or experience or expertise, and not on party credentials, but on membership in an ideological faction that is also a presidential candidate’s cult of personality. As such, it’s more dangerous than a return to the partisan habits of a bygone era.
actually, santi, cheney spent a lot of time recently campaigning in Hawaii, of all places.
Is there actually reason to suspect HI would be close? Is he trying to lend support to a downticket race? Is there a Republican pocket or core of activists that they are hoping to identify or mobilize? Is there a referrendum to push?
Santi: Not to answer for Ruy but the early exit poling usually tends to favor Republicans. This is more true of the 4pm numbers than the 2. But it is also increasingly unreliable to pick a winner with a higher percentage of early voting. So that Kerry is ahead is a good sign. But it’s no guarantee. Keep up the GOTV. Pour it on!!!!
It is about one o’clock pacific time and buzzflash.com seems to have some early exit poll numbers that favor Kerry. I wonder if Ruy might post a comment on the reliability of early exit polling. Drudgereport seems to be downplaying the early exits as unreliable, claiming that gore was ahead in certain states in early exit polling that he actually lost. But I’ve also read that early exit polling tends to favor republicans and that democrats tend to vote later in the day. If so, then Kerry’s lead in the exit polls will only grow as the day progresses. There seems to be a hint of a buzz that Kerry might run the table tonight, but I’d hate to get too hopeful and then find the night shift dramatically toward President Bush. Lastly, did you notice that Dick Cheney in the last day or two of the election stayed out of the swing states? His negatives must be so high that Republican strategists decided to keep him around Wyoming for the remainder of the campaign.