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.