There is, appropriately, a lot of analysis of the devastation wrought on the Republican Party this week. And Bereans probably don’t need me to tell you that most analyses will be self-serving, or at least cause-serving, me included. So, for example, it is not surprising at all to see J.D. Vance argue that the loss was primarily about the Iran war, as if everything else was at least acceptable. It’s not that his analysis is bad, but significantly incomplete. No mention, for example, of tariffs. Or of cozying up to the Kremlin and throwing Ukraine under the bus. Or calling affordability concerns a hoax. No mention of concerns over corruption, despite exit polling showing it as a major issue. Or Mr. Trump’s focus on building things and naming things, when most Americans wanted to get the prices down. By explicitly focusing on the Iran war, he is trying to deflect blame from his own policy prescriptions, as it’s well known that Mr. Vance was the least supportive of the war in the first place (which of course may be the correct policy position). This quick example is just intended to illustrate how all analyses will tend to skew toward their a priori ideals, rather than be introspective.

Nevertheless, I want to offer one causal action of the Trump II term being significantly different than Trump I, which I believe in large part led to the bad policies that engulfed the Republicans in this election. Of course the ultimate blame is Mr. Trump himself, but given he was the nominee, and his character hasn’t drastically changed, we must look beyond the man himself. As I argued many times during his first term, his successes (and they were real) all primarily revolved around Mr. Trump embracing and pushing traditional conservative principles. His original tax cuts. His focus on deregulation. His promise (fulfilled) of picking judges that were known to be strict constructivists and were vetted by the Federalist Society. His killing of the notorious Iranian terrorist Qasem Soleimani was acting consistent with a strong defense of American foreign interests. Yet his biggest accomplishments were made possible only by the skillful efforts of two people that Trumpians detest–Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan. And his worst instincts were muted by traditional conservatives within his administration. Mr. Trump threatened to leave NAFTA, while his cabinet helped redirect him to renegotiate the deal. Mr. Trump repeatedly threatened to leave NATO, and both Gen Mattis and John Bolton were able to pull him back. He threatened to completely withdraw from Afghanistan, even signing the directive, and Gen Milley and acting defense secretary Miller were able to convince him to withdraw the order, instead leaving a force of 2500.

But Mr. Trump and his supporters were quite insistent that his biggest mistake in Trump I was hiring bad people:

Former President Trump said the “biggest mistake” of his presidency was picking “bad, disloyal people” to join his administration.  “The biggest mistake I made was I picked some people. I picked some great people, you know, but you don’t think about that. I picked some people that I shouldn’t have picked,” Trump said during his Friday appearance on Joe Rogan’s podcast “The Joe Rogan Experience.” “I picked a few people that I shouldn’t have picked.” “Neocons,” Rogan asked. “Yeah, neocons or bad people or disloyal people,” Trump added. 

This idea permeated his selection process for his 2nd administration, to the delight of his most ardent supporters. And whatever restraint was on Mr. Trump in his first term was now gone. There are almost no serious reputable economists, for example, that would argue that we should start a trade war with the whole world. But Mr. Trump put Peter Navarro in to help make that happen, and hired people specifically toward that goal. Yes they’ve been loyal–loyally helping drive the car into a ditch. Who is there to help restrain his impulses such as threatening to take Greenland by force? In Trump I, by necessity Mr. Trump selected a lot of traditional Republicans. But by Trump II, he could find all the true believers he wanted, or those who were willing to say and do what was necessary to stay in his good graces.* This is not intended to say “establishment good, Trump bad.” In some cases it is true, but in other cases it is the reverse. While Mr. Trump’s successes were following traditional conservative policies, his own fighting style is precisely what helped drive to actually implement the ideas, rather than just talk about them as many traditional Republicans were wont to do. Mr. Trump’s first term benefitted from him having people who could both help him and occasionally tell him no. His second term seems built around the idea that these are incompatible qualities. I think we can see the stark difference between the two terms. At least the American people have seen it, and they have spoken.

There is a lesson learned for future presidents–having “yes men” all around is not in your long-term best interest, and certainly not the country’s. As is often said, personnel is policy. Never more true than in the Trump Administration.

* His cabinet does have a number of great picks. I think Energy Secretary Chris Wright, Interior Secretary Doug Burgham and EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin have done a great job, but again, their areas are focused on issues where Mr. Trump’s policies and traditional conservatism were in complete alignment. Marco Rubio has had the most difficult job of threading the needle and he has acquitted himself very well. For example, when Mr. Trump was cozying up to Mr. Putin (at least rhetorically) relative to Ukraine, Mr. Rubio said (I’m paraphrasing from memory) that look, we provide arms and intelligence to Ukraine. We don’t do that for Russia, so it’s pretty clear whose side we’re on. He didn’t go against Mr. Trump, but reaffirmed support for Ukraine. I think he still has a future.