By John Q. Hosedrinker 
President-elect Trump’s initial Cabinet picks prioritize unwavering loyalty over competence, nominating individuals like Pete Hegseth for Defense Secretary and Tulsi Gabbard for Director of National Intelligence, despite their glaring lack of relevant experience. John Ratcliffe’s nomination for CIA Director, while less shocking, still raises concerns about politicization of intelligence. These choices, including Kristi Noem and Elise Stefanik, reflect a pattern of rewarding staunch Trump supporters, even at the expense of national security. The Senate’s confirmation votes will be crucial in determining whether these appointments proceed and, if so, how long they remain in power.
Read the original article here
Trump’s appointment of what many consider to be absolute crackpots to lead military and intelligence agencies boils down to one singular, overriding reason: unquestionable loyalty. He needs individuals who will follow his orders without question, regardless of their competence or experience. This isn’t about expertise or qualifications; it’s about ensuring blind obedience.
This desire for unwavering allegiance explains his past appointments as well, like those in the justice system. The pattern is consistent; he seeks individuals whose primary commitment lies solely with him, not with the principles or responsibilities inherent in their positions. This strategy isn’t new; it’s a classic tactic employed by authoritarian leaders throughout history.
The “dismantling the deep state” rhetoric isn’t just empty words; it’s a deliberate strategy to install loyalists who will systematically replace those he perceives as disloyal. He aims to cultivate a network of like-minded individuals throughout these critical organizations, solidifying his control and influence. It’s about constructing a power structure built entirely on personal loyalty, not meritocracy or professional ethics.
Many might believe this is purely about personal power, and they’d be partially right. However, the potential consequences extend far beyond Trump’s personal ambition. This calculated strategy of placing unqualified loyalists in positions of authority has the potential to irreparably damage critical government functions and the country as a whole. The potential for national security breaches, weakened institutional integrity, and widespread chaos is significant.
The accusations of Russian influence, though serious and requiring investigation, are not mutually exclusive to the primary motivation of absolute loyalty. The fear of exposure or the allure of a symbiotic relationship with foreign powers could certainly contribute to Trump’s decisions. The notion that he might be beholden to a foreign power only underscores the inherent danger of his prioritizing personal loyalty over national interest. A leader compromised in such a way would naturally favor those who would be similarly susceptible to external influence.
These appointments aren’t random; they’re calculated moves. The implications are far-reaching and potentially devastating. This isn’t merely about incompetence; it’s a systematic dismantling of the checks and balances intended to safeguard against tyrannical overreach. He might consider the individuals he selects to be “not crackpots,” but rather, loyal accomplices. The reality, however, is that their lack of qualifications makes them profoundly dangerous in their current positions.
His actions aren’t driven by rational policy considerations; they stem from a deep-seated need for control and a complete disregard for the potential harm to the country. He may dismiss concerns about competence or ethics, viewing them as irrelevant compared to the unwavering loyalty he demands. This is a pattern indicative of authoritarian tendencies, and it presents a grave threat to democratic institutions.
The silence of those who could act is equally disturbing. If there is a path to accountability for such actions, it is the responsibility of those in a position to intervene to follow that path, despite potential personal risk. The stakes are exceptionally high, and the consequences of inaction could be catastrophic. The concern isn’t simply about questionable appointments; it’s about a potential complete erosion of the rule of law and the very fabric of democracy.
The potential for misuse of power, the possibility of corruption, and the sheer incompetence that results from prioritizing loyalty above all else are immense threats to national security and public well-being. It is a calculated gamble with the very future of the nation. And as long as there’s not a unified front of accountability and resistance, this gamble is far from over.