A Reince Priebus supporter recently lamented the abrupt ouster of Preibus as President Trump’s chief of staff. It was apparently a forced resignation that was in the making for weeks if not months, with conditions exacerbated by the recent arrival of Anthony Scaramucci as Trump’s director of communications. The supporter, who appreciated Priebus’ calm and measured disposition, noted that some (unnamed) individual who knows Scaramucci personally described him as a “whack job.”
Whether or not that is an apt description of Scaramucci remains to be seen, and I, for one, do not know enough about him to draw that conclusion. But because Priebus is the last person in the world who anyone could call a “whack job” – in fact, he arguably can be described as the exact opposite of a whack job – some would contend that his departure causes the president of a chaotic administration to lose one of his precious few voices of reason.
As I wrote when Priebus was first appointed, “there has been nothing bad said about Priebus. Not a word. And that is a reason to commend him. In these contentious times, with a 24/7 conventional and social media blitz, seeking to pounce on every opportunity to exploit an opponent’s weakness, anyone in such a high-profile position who escapes the media’s looming microscope must be something special” (“E Priebus Unum: Reince Rewarded for Steering Ship,” Nov. 26, 2016). The same cannot be said for Scaramucci, who unleashed a foul-mouthed tirade to the New Yorker’s Ryan Lizza about a number of people who work for the president, Priebus included – though Scaramucci insisted he made the comments off the record and they were never meant for public disclosure.
For all these reasons, it would seem that with Priebus out and Scaramucci in, it is a net loss for the administration. Or is it?
First, it is important to remember that Priebus replacement as chief of staff, is not Scaramucci, but General John Kelly, who is moving to the West Wing after a short and widely lauded reign as secretary of Homeland Security. That Scaramucci and Priebus are dominating the headlines is more a result of their infamous contentious feud than of the importance of General Kelly’s new role. In fact, if Kelly adopts a methodical, efficient approach to running the White House and stays out of the headlines, that would give the administration a much-needed boost.
Second, while Priebus possesses diplomatic, organizational, and even visionary gifts that catapulted him to great success at a rather young age, what he lacks, and what the president needs, is unconditional support for Trump – the man and his message. There is every indication that Priebus is professional enough to remain absolutely loyal to his boss – whoever that may be – and patriotic enough to zealously answer the call of duty to serve his country. But he is not a Trump guy “ap’ ta kokkala vgalmenos (from the bone).” Cut him open and he does not unequivocally bleed “Trump orange.”
Again, this is not to suggest that Priebus did anything to diminish the president or his agenda, but it is really difficult to completely immerse yourself in Trumpism if you’re more of a Mitt Romney/Jeb Bush/Marco Rubio kinda guy.
As the former Chair of the Republican National Committee, Priebus has impeccable establishment pedigree. While that may be an attractive commodity on Capitol Hill, it tends not to bode as well in serving an anti-establishment populist president who in both style and substance is strikingly unorthodox.
WHO’S SIDE ARE YOU ON?
As I have written many times, as much as the president might call himself a Republican on paper, he is the most apartisan president we’ve had since John Tyler assumed the office after President William Henry Harrison died after a record-short term of only 32 days. That was way back in 1841.
Trump had a vision and needed to get to the White House to ply it, and the Republican path was the easier way of getting there. He has been openly critical of Republicans, and quite harshly at times. Many of them, in turn, did just about everything in their power to keep him from winning the party’s nomination, and many shied away from him even in the general election.
Greek-Americans are often asked: “if Greece and the United States go to war, which side would you be on? Which country would you fight for?” After a good deal of hemming and hawing and trying to skate a direct answer with: “oh, that’s never going to happen” or “I’d stay neutral,” a gut-wrenching, brutally honest revelation would ultimately reveal whether the answerer is more Greek or more American.
Analogously, also quite unlikely (though less so) is the possibility of Trump making a clean and drastic break from the Republicans. In that case, on whose side would Priebus be? Never mind that he undoubtedly would do everything in his power to prevent such a thing from happening, if there was no plausible way to save both the Trump presidency and the Republican Party, now that he’s out of the White House and has no formal duty to align with the president, in which camp would Priebus stand?
I cannot claim to know the answer for sure, but I do know that because Trump is the first president since Tyler without a single component of the establishment supporting him, he needs all the “ap’ ta kokkala vgalmenoi” true believers by his side that he can get.
The post Analysis: With Priebus Gone, is that Better or Worse for Trump? appeared first on The National Herald.