Bret Stephens: The Logic Behind Trump’s Cabinet Picks - The Opinions

Summary4 min read

Podcast Summary: Bret Stephens on The Logic Behind Trump’s Cabinet Picks

Podcast Information:

Title: The Opinions
Host/Author: The New York Times Opinion
Episode: Bret Stephens: The Logic Behind Trump’s Cabinet Picks
Release Date: November 21, 2024

Introduction

In this episode of The Opinions, hosted by The New York Times Opinion team, Bret Stephens delves into the intricate dynamics of President Elect Donald Trump's recent cabinet nomination of Matt Gaetz as Attorney General. Stephens draws parallels between contemporary political maneuvers and Daniel Patrick Moynihan's seminal essay, "Defining Deviancy Down," exploring the shifting moral and ethical standards within American politics.

Defining Deviancy Down: Moynihan's Relevance Today

Bret Stephens opens by referencing Moynihan's essay, emphasizing its enduring relevance in understanding current political trends.

“Every society, the Senator scholar from New York argued, could afford to penalize only a certain amount of behavior it deemed, quote unquote, deviant.” ([00:44])

Stephens explains that Moynihan posited societies tend to normalize increasing deviant behaviors rather than crack down on them, leading to a shift in societal standards over time.

Historical Context: Shifting Political Standards

Stephens provides historical examples to illustrate how political and moral standards have evolved:

Ronald Reagan's Divorce: In 1980, Reagan's divorce was considered a political liability, a stark contrast to today's more permissive attitudes.
Douglas Ginsburg's Marijuana Use: In 1987, Supreme Court nominee Douglas Ginsburg withdrew his nomination after it was revealed he had smoked marijuana, which today might not be as damaging.
Bill Clinton's Attorney General Candidates: Zoe Baird and Kimba Wood faced scrutiny over hiring illegal immigrants and tax issues, respectively, which Stephens labels as “how quaint.”

“How quaint.” ([02:50])

These examples underscore the shift in what is deemed acceptable or career-ending for political figures.

Trump’s Appointment of Matt Gaetz: A Modern Example

Stephens scrutinizes the nomination of Matt Gaetz, highlighting the controversies surrounding him:

Allegations Against Gaetz: Gaetz is accused of using Venmo to pay for sex with multiple women, including an incident involving a 17-year-old girl at a party in 2017.

“If someone accused of statutory rape can be attorney general, anything else is possible.” ([06:10])

Federal Inquiry: Gaetz was the target of a failed federal inquiry into sex trafficking allegations, which collapsed due to questionable witness reliability.

Stephens connects Gaetz's nomination to Moynihan's theory, suggesting it represents a deliberate effort to lower ethical standards within the Republican Party.

The Republican Party's Transparency Issues

Stephens criticizes the Republican Party's handling of ethical investigations:

Mike Johnson and the Ethics Committee Report: The House Speaker, Mike Johnson, refused to release the Ethics Committee report on Gaetz, citing Johnson's resignation as the reason.

“Nothing so indicts today's Republican Party as the refusal by the House Speaker, Mike Johnson, to release the Ethics Committee report about Gates on the patently disingenuous pretext that he has resigned his House seat.” ([05:30])

Stephens argues that this lack of transparency undercuts the party’s credibility and illustrates a broader trend of diminishing moral accountability.

Trumpism's Cynicism and the Erosion of Truth

Stephens delves into the philosophical underpinnings of Trumpism, describing it as rooted in cynicism and a disregard for truth:

“To perpetuate the spirit of cynicism which is the core of Trumpism. If truth has no currency, you cannot use it. If power is the only coin of the realm, you'd better be on the side of it.” ([07:15])

He asserts that Trump's strategy involves governing through cynicism, where power trumps truth, leading to a political environment where moral standards are continually eroded.

A Hope for Defining Deviancy Up

Despite the grim analysis, Stephens offers a hopeful perspective inspired by Moynihan's original warning:

“Americans collectively decided that there were forms of deviancy, particularly violent crime, that they were not in fact prepared to accept as an unalterable fact of life.” ([08:00])

He recalls the collective action taken in the past to combat violent crime—such as the passing of a powerful crime bill and innovative policing methods—that restored civility to urban areas. Stephens suggests that similar collective efforts are necessary to redefine deviant behavior upwards in the political arena, reinstituting higher ethical standards.

Conclusion

Bret Stephens's analysis in this episode of The Opinions presents a compelling examination of how Trump’s cabinet nominations reflect a broader strategy of redefining societal norms and lowering moral standards within American politics. By drawing on Moynihan's theory, Stephens provides insightful commentary on the current political climate, highlighting both the challenges and the potential pathways to restoring ethical integrity in governance.

Notable Quotes with Timestamps:

00:44: “Every society, the Senator scholar from New York argued, could afford to penalize only a certain amount of behavior it deemed, quote unquote, deviant.”
02:50: “How quaint.”
05:30: “Nothing so indicts today's Republican Party as the refusal by the House Speaker, Mike Johnson, to release the Ethics Committee report about Gates on the patently disingenuous pretext that he has resigned his House seat.”
06:10: “If someone accused of statutory rape can be attorney general, anything else is possible.”
07:15: “To perpetuate the spirit of cynicism which is the core of Trumpism. If truth has no currency, you cannot use it.”
08:00: “Americans collectively decided that there were forms of deviancy, particularly violent crime, that they were not in fact prepared to accept as an unalterable fact of life.”

This detailed summary encapsulates Bret Stephens's critical examination of Trump's cabinet choices, framed within a theoretical context that underscores the shifting ethical landscape in American politics.

Loading summary

Transcript4 lines

[00:00]
US Bank Representative
This podcast is supported by US Bank. At US bank, when they say they're in it with you, they mean it. Not just for the good stuff, the grand openings and celebrations, although those are pretty great, but for all the hard work it took to get there. Because together they're proving day in and day out that there is nothing as powerful as the power of us. Visit us bank.com to get started today. = housing lender member FDIC.
[00:29]
Podcast Host
This is the Opinions, a show that brings you a mix of voices from New York Times opinion. You've heard the news. Here's what to make of it.
[00:44]
Bret Stephens
I'm Bret Stephens. I'm an opinion columnist for the New York Times. I write about foreign policy, domestic politics, and other issues that are topical and timely for Times readers. Since President Elect Trump named Matt Gaetz as his choice for attorney general, I've been thinking about the place of deviancy in American politics. And I've been thinking about an old essay by the late Senator Scholar Daniel Patrick Moynihan and how it remains relevant today. Here is my essay Defining Deviancy down and down and Down it's been a little more than three decades since Daniel Patrick Moynihan published his famous essay on Defining deviancy Down. Every society, the Senator scholar from New York argued, could afford to penalize only a certain amount of behavior it deemed, quote unquote, deviant. As the stock of such behavior increased, whether in the form of out of wedlock births or mentally ill people living outdoors or violence in urban streets, society would most easily adapt not by cracking down, but instead by normalizing what used to be considered unacceptable, immoral or outrageous. Perspectives would shift, standards would fall, and people would get used to it. Moynihan's great example was the St. Valentine's Day Massacre in Chicago, in which four gangsters killed seven gangsters in 1929. The crime so shocked the nation that it helped spell the end of Prohibition. By the early 1990s, that sort of episode would barely rate a story in the inside pages of a newspaper. If Moynihan were writing his essay today, he might have added a section about politics. In 1980, when Ronald Reagan won the presidency, it was still considered something of a political liability that he had been divorced 32 years earlier. In 1987, one of Reagan's nominees for the Supreme Court, Douglas Ginsburg, had to withdraw his name after NPR's Nina Totenberg revealed that years earlier the judge had smoked pot. A few years later, two of Bill Clinton's early candidates for attorney general, Zoe Baird and Kimba Wood were felled by revelations of hiring illegal immigrants as nannies and in Baird's case, of not paying Social Security taxes. How quaint. On Monday, a lawyer for two women told several news outlets that former Representative Matt Gaetz used Venmo to pay for sex with multiple women, one of whom says she saw him having sex with a 17 year old girl at a drug fueled house party in 2017. Donald Trump is doubling down on Gates nomination as attorney general, even as the president elect privately acknowledges that the chances of confirmation are not great. It's important to note that Gaetz was the target of a separate federal inquiry into sex trafficking allegations that fell apart last year because of questions about witnesses. That isn't the only high profile Justice Department investigation that went nowhere. Senator Ted Stevens of Alaska was politically ruined by a conviction that was overturned because of prosecutorial misconduct. Trump's supposed collusion with Russia turned out to be a liberal pipe dream. Liberals, especially, should always want to guard the presumption of innocence, not least for unpopular defendants. But if that is or used to be true of liberals, didn't it also used to be true of conservatives that they at least pretended to care about moral standards? Whatever turns out to be true about Gates behavior. Nothing so indicts today's Republican Party as the refusal by the House Speaker, Mike Johnson, to release the Ethics Committee report about Gates on the patently disingenuous pretext that he has resigned his House seat. If there's nothing to hide in the report, full transparency could only help. Gates case Smoke may not always amount to fire, but darkness inevitably means dirt. Still, all this misses the meaning of the Gates nomination, the point of which has nothing to do with his suitability for the job. His virtue, in Trump's eyes, is his unsuitability. He is the proverbial tip of the spear in a larger effort to define deviancy down if someone accused of statutory rape can be attorney general, anything else is possible. Not just Tulsi Gabbard as director of National Intelligence or Robert F. Kennedy Jr. As health and Human Services secretary. But anything. There's a guiding logic here, and it isn't to own the libs in the sense of driving Trump's opponents to fits of moralistic outrage, even if from the president elect's perspective, that's an ancillary benefit. It's to perpetuate the spirit of cynicism which is the core of Trumpism. If truth has no currency, you cannot use it. If power is the only coin of the realm, you'd better be on the side of it. If the government is run by cads and lackeys, you'll need to make your peace with them. Man gets used to everything the beast Dostoyevsky has Raskolnikov observe in Crime and Punishment. That's Trump's insight, too, the method by which he seems intent to govern. There's a hopeful coda to Moynihan's warning. In the years after he published his essay, Americans collectively decided that there were forms of deviancy, particularly violent crime, that they were not in fact prepared to accept as an unalterable fact of life. A powerful crime bill was passed in Congress. The police adopted innovative methods to deter violence, urban leaders enforced rules against low level lawbreakers, bad guys were locked away, and cities became civilized and livable again. Part of that achievement has been undone in recent years, but it's a reminder that it's also possible to define deviancy up in politics. We can't start soon enough.
[08:26]
Podcast Host
If you like this show, follow it on Spotify, Apple or wherever you get your podcasts. This show is produced by Derek Arthur, Sophia Alvarez, Boyd, Vishaka Durba, Phoebe Lett, Christina Samulewski and Jillian Weinberger. It's edited by Kari Pitkin, Alison Brusek and Annie Rose Strasser. Engineering, mixing and original music by Isaac Jones, sonia Herrero, Pat McCusker, Carol Sabaro and Afim Shapiro. Additional music by Amin Sohota. The Fact Check team is Kate Sinclair, Mary Marge Locker and Michelle Harris. Audience strategy by Shannon Busta, Christina Samulewski and Adrian Rivera. The executive producer of Times Opinion Audio is Annie Rose Dresser.