Trump’s Nominees Disagreeing With Him Is a Good Thing

His nomination of people who challenge him should be praised not mocked

US President-elect Donald Trump waves toward the media after meeting Martin Luther King III at Trump Tower in New York City on January 16, 2017. The eldest son of American civil rights icon Martin Luther King Jr. met with US President-elect Donald Trump on the national holiday observed in remembrance of his late father. / AFP / DOMINICK REUTER

US President-elect Donald Trump. Dominick Reuter/AFP/Getty Images

The media appears to be enjoying the confirmation hearings for Donald Trump’s cabinet nominees. In article after article, the mainstream media lapped up any contradiction between Trump and his nominees.

First, Vox gleefully reported that Trump’s pick for secretary of defense, Gen. James Mattis, “aced his hearing—by throwing Trump under the bus.” Vox noted that Mattis voiced support for the Iran deal and keeping the U.S. embassy in Israel in Tel Aviv.

MSNBC also appeared to derive pleasure from these contradictions, pointing out that some of the views expressed by the Trump nominees sound similar to what nominees of Hillary Clinton would have said, had she won.

The Washington Post was less exuberant in its coverage, but still collected a list of Trump’s nominees contradicting him. Aside from Mattis, Trump’s pick for the CIA, Rep. Mike Pompeo, said he would “absolutely not” use torture on terrorism suspects. Trump’s pick for the Department of Homeland Security, retired Gen. John Kelly, downplayed the U.S.-Mexico wall. Another pick, Rex Tillerson, who was nominated for secretary of state, said climate change required “a global response.”

Does the mainstream media have short-term memory loss? Because Trump himself had already been walking back many of his campaign promises. Trump told The Wall Street Journal he wasn’t concerned with prosecuting Hillary Clinton and would keep parts of Obamacare. Trump surrogate Newt Gingrich said shortly after the election that the new president “may not spend much time trying to get Mexico to pay for [the wall],” as he promised during the campaign. Trump’s transition team also reportedly signaled the wall would be paid for through appropriations, not by Mexico, as Trump had promised.

Senior Trump adviser Walid Phares had also already signaled that the Trump administration would renegotiate the Iran nuclear treaty rather than abandoning it altogether. Phares indicated that Trump was in no hurry to move Israel’s capital to Jerusalem.

In an interview with The New York Times a few weeks after the election, Trump was already walking back his talk about climate change being a hoax. Times reporters tweeted that Trump said he thought “there is some connectivity” between humans and climate change, but that “It depends on how much.”

Trump had discussed the subject of torture with Gen. Mattis, and was rethinking his original position on the issue.

It appears Trump’s nominees aren’t so much contradicting him, but stating the positions Trump has adopted since the election.

But let’s say Trump still strictly believes what he promised on the trail: wouldn’t it be praiseworthy of him to nominate people into positions who don’t agree with him on every issue? Shouldn’t the media be excited that Trump’s nominees are acting more like Clinton nominees?

If, as the media and leftists insist, Trump is the embodiment of evil—the second coming of Adolf Hitler—shouldn’t these nominees be praised?

But so many liberals I’ve spoken to seem set in their hatred of Republicans, especially Trump, that walking back his campaign promises doesn’t make him any less evil. Nominating people who don’t agree with those campaign promises does nothing to make him less evil, either.

It seems like anything the Left can use to attack Trump, they’ll use, even if they’re attacking him for doing things they would otherwise approve.

Trump’s Nominees Disagreeing With Him Is a Good Thing