Will Trump White House be 'Survivor: Bureaucracy'?

Donald Trump's first two appointments are two very different people. But that high-drama approach has served him well so far. 

Mike Segar/Reuters/File
Stephen Bannon looks on as Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump makes a campaign visit to the Little Haiti Cultural Center in Miami on Sept. 16. Mr. Bannon has been named chief strategist of Mr. Trump's administration.

Is Donald Trump staffing his White House or scripting it?

His campaign in many ways was reality television brought to politics, full of outrageous action, constant twists, and narrative tension. It’s possible the president-elect is using this same approach in his transition. Call it “West Wing Apprentice,” or “Survivor: Bureaucracy.”

Consider his first big personnel moves: Reince Priebus as chief of staff, and Steven Bannon as chief strategist and senior counselor.

Mr. Priebus, currently chairman of the Republican National Committee, is the button-down, by-the-book character in this formulation. His job is nominally more important. He’ll be the protagonist around which lots of Oval Office drama will revolve.

Many Trump skeptics are greeting his appointment with relief.

“Congrats to @realDonaldTrump for outstanding choice of @Reince to be Chief of Staff. This shows me he is serious about governing,” tweeted out Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, a former Trump primary opponent and past harsh critic.

Meanwhile, Mr. Bannon, chief of Breitbart News, is the renegade in the White House cast – or villain, to some. He’s the provocateur, the self-proclaimed leader of the alternative right. Bannon says it’s all about national identity, and opposition to immigration and the excesses of globalism. His critics say the alt-right is actually about race.

“Bannon is a longtime professional bigot, as documented by the Southern Poverty Law Center among others,” writes political scientist Jonathan Bernstein today in his Bloomberg View column.

The storyline here is obvious, first-season stuff. Priebus and Bannon will represent rival power centers. It’ll be inside versus outside, clean-shaven versus scruffy, the quiet operator versus the loud guy who breaks all the rules.

The most logical plot would have Priebus winning. Chief of staff is the second-most powerful job in the United States government, by many measures. They are the person who controls access to the president and shapes the policy options from which the president chooses. They can set much of the Executive Branch agenda. The rest of the White House staff will be concerned about Priebus.

Many chiefs of staff have become Washington legends: think of H.R. Haldeman, Nixon’s guard dog (later jailed for his Watergate role); James Baker, Reagan’s tough advocate (later named secretary of State); or Rahm Emmanuel, spearhead of the Obama administration (now mayor of Chicago).

Perhaps a dominant chief of staff is what Trump intends. Bannon’s appointment could be a sop to his loudest, most angry voters, the ones who wore T-shirts with obscene comments about Hillary Clinton to Trump rallies. The job Bannon now has is in fact a difficult one; an adviser without portfolio has to create his or her own purpose. They’re not always automatically included in meetings. They have to find the room where things are happening themselves.

But in reality TV, the dark stars do sometimes triumph. Much depends on their relationship with the president and their ability to set strategic goals and stick with them. Maybe the most successful staffer-without-portfolio in recent administrations was Karl Rove. As senior adviser (and deputy chief of staff) to President George W. Bush, Mr. Rove pushed Mr. Bush to back the Medicare Part D prescription drug plan, among other things. He was instrumental in shaping W’s 2004 reelection agenda.

In the moves, there are perhaps the faint outlines of an underlying practicality. Trump agreed to put Priebus in the chief of staff position after his daughter Ivanka and son-in-law, Jared Kushner, said the “job should not be held by someone too controversial,” The New York times reported. Moreover, President Obama said of his meeting with Trump: “I don't think he is ideological. I think ultimately he is pragmatic.”

But comparing Trump’s staff moves to casting a reality show is not totally over the top. Trump won a stunning victory in large part by providing the media a campaign story they could not resist, producing hundreds of millions of dollars worth of free coverage. Why should he stop the drama now?

Maybe Priebus and Bannon will peacefully coexist. But given their roots in very different constituencies, conflict seems inevitable. Abraham Lincoln famously cultivated a “Team of Rivals” staff. Trump has done the same thing in his businesses. So buckle up.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.
Real news can be honest, hopeful, credible, constructive.
What is the Monitor difference? Tackling the tough headlines – with humanity. Listening to sources – with respect. Seeing the story that others are missing by reporting what so often gets overlooked: the values that connect us. That’s Monitor reporting – news that changes how you see the world.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.

QR Code to Will Trump White House be 'Survivor: Bureaucracy'?
Read this article in
QR Code to Subscription page
Start your subscription today