That's what I said. Trump selected lots of people like that to head up agencies. They either have no experience, wanted to destroy the agency earlier, or will put their ideology before the will of the people every time.
Just a pedantic procedural point: The FCC is not an "agency", but a commission with 5 members. Once a commissioner is named, they cannot be removed by the President for any reason besides misconduct. The two of them besides Mr. Pai who are Republicans have been on for quite a while and their agreement is necessary for this scheme of his to work. He presumably has it, otherwise there would be no vote taking place, so it's not like this is merely a product of Trump’s unique intervention here.
I feel like this happens with every president. People like to blame the person in charge when in reality, there are a LOT of other people doing nefarious things behind the scene.
Not trying to let trump off the hook, more so trying to get the message across that we have more to focus on.
Let's be clear about something here. These are most likely not organic Trump picks. This is about the biggest donors getting their quid pro quo in the form of cabinet picks due to regulatory capture... and leaks of the Obama admin indicate the same thing happened with him, the same with Bush before him, and likely with presidents for a long time. With Obama it was citigroup who got most of the picks if I remember correctly, but with Trump it seems to be a bit more varied. (Eg Eric Princes sister for Education Secretary, etc)
Edit: I'd appreciate dialogue instead of just down votes. To clarify, by saying Trumps picks were a bit more varied I wasn't saying it was any better than bankers picking almost all of them.
The realpolitik response I usually hear is how only industry experts at a high level can fill these positions, but I simply no longer buy this argument.
Devos is actually a perfect pick if you assume the goal was to pursue her pet agenda at the expense of every other possible agenda that a Secretary of Education could have. Whether the skids were greased because of her rich brother or not, she still could have been picked by some hypothetical other Republican president.
Usually, the completely crooked, bought-their-way-into-the-Cabinet appointment in any given administration is whoever becomes the Commerce Secretary. You don't usually remember who the Commerce Secretary is because they don't typically do anything, but they're almost always a big money donor. There's a bipartisan tradition of that which stretches back to when it was created at the turn of the century.
I disagree. She was appointed for two primary reasons that I see from my admittedly limited perspective. One, to shore up support of the evangelicals. Two, because of donations made by her brother and similar people. Once in office, abusing her position to give favors to those who get her appointed seems little different to me than bankers donating and getting bankers cabinet positions and then those people doing similar things. (For example, I can almost guarantee if I did some digging I could find similar tax break schemes for their base under each admin) I feel like just because the neocons are slightly easier to hate on than bankers it causes a bit of willful myopia on the subject.
Exactly so. While he often adopts the mien of those for whom he is a vehicle, Trump himself has no real political philosophy; every pick is entirely transactional.
That's a good but saddening point. I guess its hella naive of me to imagine a lotus might someday make picks based off who actually is best qualified for the job.