Voters need to know who will serve the next president

OPINION:

Here’s an idea: Instead of wasting time on questions about UFOs and climate change, maybe the moderators of Wednesday’s Republican primary debate should have asked about important and relevant questions.

There are probably lots of topics from which to choose, but given former President Donald Trump’s record on personnel decisions, maybe a good question would have been: “If elected, what people, or what kind of people, will you appoint to the administration?”

The president has to fill about 5,000 political jobs. The chances of making a mistake or two or a few dozen are pretty high. The stakes are high, as the difference between a successful administration and a failed one usually rides on the people with whom the president surrounds himself. He should be especially careful about those who will work in close proximity to him.

Mr. Trump’s personnel track record in his first term was not great.

In the event you have forgotten the first term, Mr. Trump, unaccustomed to governing, tended to prefer those with the “right” credentials rather than those who could help him advance his agenda. Think of his affection for generals, almost all of whom were hostile to his agenda (former Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis), corporate folks (former Secretary of State Rex Tillerson), or simply those who defended him aggressively on television (former White House Communications Director Anthony Scaramucci).

There were also problems involving family members, including one who operated for much of the administration as a shadow chief of staff.

At least one of his appointments – Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell – continues to cut a destructive path through the American economy, and his provenance and destiny have rightly become issues in the Republican primary.

Eventually, questions about why Dr. Anthony Fauci was allowed to close down schools, businesses and churches will come to the fore.

The most obvious difficulties were in the most important position, chief of staff. His first chief, Reince Priebus, certainly meant well, but the job seemed to be beyond his abilities. However, he was a much better chief than his successor, Gen. John Kelly, who did whatever he could to actively retard and frustrate Mr. Trump’s agenda.

The political history of Mr. Trump’s last chief, Mark Meadows – whom the president characterized as his “James Baker” – suggested that he would be politically aligned, but in the heat of the COVID-19 moment, Mr. Meadows, like the president, empowered all of the wrong people and made suboptimal decisions – including creating and enforcing the lockdowns that damaged individuals, students, families and neighborhoods.

Those decisions were, of course, lethal to Mr. Trump’s chances to win reelection in 2020.

Mr. Meadows’ record as chief also includes the mayhem and associated damage of the Jan. 6, 2021, riot at the U.S. Capitol, which was exacerbated by Mr. Meadows’ promotion of then 24-year-old Cassidy Hutchinson to be the de facto legislative chief in the Executive Office of the President.

Ms. Hutchinson, as you may remember, was a star witness in primetime for the Soviet show trial that was the January 6th Commission. Her presence and her testimony would have been impossible had Mr. Meadows not elevated her to a senior role in the White House.

All of this is worth keeping in mind as Americans think about who should be the next president.

Team Reagan used to say that personnel is policy. Personnel is also destiny. The media should start asking candidates (including Mr. Trump) what kinds of people they would appoint in the event they become president.

Then, voters can proceed accordingly.

• Michael McKenna, a columnist for The Washington Times, is president of MWR Strategies. He was most recently a deputy assistant to the president and deputy director of the Office of Legislative Affairs at the White House. He can be reached at mike@mwrstrat.com.