By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Donald Trump’s cabinet picks reveal a pattern of appointing individuals who have previously lost elections, including those defeated by him and within the Republican party. This strategy contrasts with his public rhetoric of celebrating “winners,” suggesting a deliberate effort to select loyalists unlikely to oppose his agenda. These appointments, encompassing figures from various races and levels of government, indicate a prioritization of unwavering allegiance over experience or prior electoral success. Trump’s stated goal is to avoid the “mistakes” of his first term by surrounding himself with completely compliant individuals.
Read the original article here
Trump frequently proclaims his disdain for losers, yet a recurring pattern emerges in his choices for key positions: he repeatedly selects individuals with a history of political defeat or significant professional setbacks. This apparent contradiction begs the question: why does someone who claims to abhor failure consistently surround himself with those who have demonstrably failed?
One possible explanation is that his definition of “loser” is fundamentally different from the conventional understanding. For Trump, a “loser” may simply be anyone who opposes him or challenges his authority, regardless of their actual accomplishments. This interpretation allows him to label any critic as a failure, while simultaneously praising those who exhibit unwavering loyalty, even if their qualifications are questionable. The emphasis shifts from objective performance to subjective allegiance.
Perhaps his selections reflect a deliberate strategy to maintain power and control. By surrounding himself with less competent individuals, he ensures his own perceived superiority. This dynamic subtly reinforces his image as a decisive leader who makes critical decisions. This isn’t merely about competence; it’s about ensuring that those in key roles would never surpass him in influence or popularity. The less competent his team, the more they would depend on him, and the less likely they would challenge him.
Another perspective suggests that Trump’s choices are driven by a desire for unquestioning loyalty. Competence might breed independence, while those with a history of failure may be more desperate for approval and less likely to dissent. This strategy, although risky in terms of effective governance, prioritizes unquestioning support over expertise and potential disagreement. Such a calculated approach to selecting advisors helps to create a climate of subservience and prevents challenges to his authority.
It’s also plausible that Trump simply lacks the discernment to effectively assess the capabilities of his potential appointees. This is not to suggest that he’s entirely incapable; rather, his criteria might center on factors unrelated to competence, such as personal connections or perceived usefulness in his personal branding. His focus may be skewed towards qualities like unwavering loyalty over professional experience. This is a gamble that could ultimately lead to poor governance, but it also ensures a pliable team.
Another intriguing possibility is that Trump’s selection process reflects a certain level of self-awareness. By choosing individuals with questionable backgrounds or histories of failure, he subtly deflects potential criticism. Any shortcomings or failures within his administration can easily be attributed to the inherent limitations of his subordinates, effectively shielding himself from responsibility. This deflects attention away from his own potential lack of judgment or strategic failures.
Furthermore, the selection of individuals with past defeats might be viewed as a risk-mitigation strategy. These individuals may feel more indebted to Trump for the opportunity, making them less likely to challenge him or to consider alternative courses of action. This perceived loyalty, however flawed, creates a tight circle of dependable individuals who are unlikely to undermine his goals. The risk, of course, is that such a strategy results in very poor decisions.
In conclusion, the reasons behind Trump’s repeated selection of individuals with histories of failure are likely multi-faceted. His idiosyncratic definition of “loser,” a desire for absolute loyalty, the potential for deflecting criticism, and the possibility of an inherent inability to assess competence all contribute to this puzzling pattern. Ultimately, it seems less a matter of a simple aversion to losers, and more a complex interplay of personal biases, strategic decision-making, and perhaps a degree of self-preservation. This practice, regardless of intention, ultimately undermines the efficient and effective functioning of his team.