Twofold Dangers from John Kelly

John Kelly Exceeds His Station

Many of us breathed a sigh of relief when John Kelly became Trump’s chief of staff—at last, we thought, someone who could contain Trump’s most egregious outbursts, throttle down volatility in the White House, and act as gatekeeper, in particular minimizing the casual comings and goings of  members of the quasi-Royal Family in and out of the Oval Office.

Kelly has managed to limit access to the President, but has largely failed in containing Trump’s emotional outbursts  on Twitter and suppressing volatility in the White House.  But, perhaps in frustration from his own ineffectiveness, Kelly overstepped his station when he got into a feud with Representative Frederica Wilson over the notorious phone call the President made to a Gold Star family. Actually, I understood Kelly’s point about Wilson’s grandstanding, even though he made a factual error (a natural symptom of the misinformation disease caught by anyone who associates with Trump).

The wrangle with Wilson, however,  was in itself not the most troubling issue with Kelly’s feud.  More troubling is, that what he got into  was about more than just straightening the record. The feud was unmistakably political. It was about a top administrative official engaging in an activity beyond his job description. Recently, Kelley Anne Conway got into hot water for endorsing morally challenged Senate candidate Roy Moore. That’s a violation of rules prohibiting staffers from involvement in electoral politics (only the President and Vice President can publicly endorse a candidate).  If what John Kelly did is not a strict technical violation of the rule, it is certainly a violation of the rule in spirit.

Moreover, when asked about Kelly’s departure from the truth, press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders defended Kelly by saying something to the effect that having been a Four Star General, Kelly was above question.  A good summary of what that meant—a military autocracy mindset—was made by Erik Wemple in the Washington Post here.

John Kelly Engages in Situation Ethics

Is Kelly a danger to Constitutional process? Short answer: yep. Kelly tipped us off to anti-Constitutional proclivities in his comments defending not just Robert E. Lee statues and Confederate monuments in general.  He said it was “dangerous” to remove the statues, showing ” a lack of appreciation of history and what history is.”

He didn’t stop there; he went on to defend Robert E Lee in particular, and said “I would tell you that Robert E. Lee was an honorable man. He was a man that gave up his country to fight for his state, which 150 years ago was more important than country. It was always loyalty to state first back in those days.”

So what about the U.S. Constitution? That august document’s first words were “In order to form a more perfect Union.”  Yes, Union, General Kelly. Not “An association of states that can make their own laws superseding  those of the federal government, and if the federal government enforces its jurisdiction, have the legal right to secede.”

The Union had already been in place for more than seventy years when Lee committed treason.  What’s with Kelly’s notion that “it was always loyalty to state first back in those days?”  What days? Evidently, it was the days in which slavery was still legal in the South.

Another principle of the Constitution was “to provide for the common defense. ” Common defense. The point of that provision was, if any state or states were under attack, the country as a whole would defend it as part of the Union. The Confederacy adopted the opposite principle—itself attack the federal government and the northern states, with their opening salvo of 4,000 shells against Fort Sumter striking the match .

Robert E. Lee was exempted from trial for treason not because he was innocent, but because President Grant (who had been contemporary with Lee at West Point) thought to do so would make Lee a martyr and strengthen the South’s postwar resistance. As I noted in another post, if Grant could see what was going on today, he might rethink that decision.

Forget Lee, my  main point here is about KELLY.  His comments sound a note of situation ethics.  His message: under extenuating circumstances, it’s OK to break the law—not just any lawbreaking, rather it is to break your solemn oath of defending thousands of citizens, and instead wage war on more than half of those citizens. That’s a step well beyond passive resistance, into active treason.

Those of us who are concerned about a possible military coup  if Trump goes completely off the rails, should take note of John Kelly making excuses for people, especially military people, taking the law into their own hands.

The generals would probably like Mike Pence to succeed Trump, but their liking of Pence might not extend to foreign affairs, where Pence seems to be something of a dunce. They could pursue the Taliban deep into Pakistani territory—enough to make it an effective war on Pakistan. They’d do it without Congressional approval and with Pence deferring to them because they know best, and Sarah Huckabee Sanders stonewalling the press because they are, after all, generals. Kelly: “The situation is different now that Russia has accomplished such dominance in Syria. We need to set an example that we can play hardball too.”

This would be not an all-out coup, but if, in addition, the generals temporarily take the government into their hands* for a transition to Pence, it would set a really bad precedent going forward. Pence’s obsequiousness toward the incompetent Trump suggests he would be only more than willing to defer to leaders who have proven competence, especially military ones.

(Pence did not serve in the military, but his father earned a bronze star in the Korean War, which Pence displays in his office. That’s an indicator of Pence’s propensity to play second fiddle, if  his subservience to his boss is not already enough.  Guest: “I’m impressed by your bronze star over there.” Pence: “Oh,  actually, that’s my father’s. He was a great man.”)

Of course, under a President Pence we would be dealing with a different kind of threat.  A threat to women’s rights, to the separation of church and state, to the rights to due process for citizens of a suspect religion, national origin, ethnicity, or political position. 

================= footnotes follow =================

* It’s not hard to envision such a scenario. Suppose a leftist assassinates  Trump, and White Supremacists, neo-Nazis, and enraged far rightists of any stripe, march on “fake news” TV stations with  guns at the ready, shooting anyone who exits the building. Then on to the universities. These guys, equipped with assault weapons, can outgun most police forces .  Some of them might take it into their heads to attack and disable a power station.  Anything to deal blows to the progressive state. Then if you have, thanks to social media, multiple simultaneous outbreaks, you can be pretty sure Pence’s ponderous brain would seize up.  Chaos erupts, swift application of force is called for, and who better to apply it than the triumvirate of Kelly,  Mattis, and McMaster?  Attention, National Guard, take up your weapons! They call Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell, and the legislators, aghast, say, “Do what you think best. You’re in charge.” (Not without some thought of Pence. Ryan to general: “How’s Mike holding up?  This is not what he signed up for.”)