Experts and the deep state betrayed earlier presidents as well

From When JFK was Trump by Jeff Greenfield via Ann Althouse.

I keep hearing from political journalists of the uniqueness of Trump's actions in condemning tones. And in virtually every instance, I can immediately think of the multiple near-identical instances from earlier presidents. It makes a mockery of journalism and reinforces Ben Rhodes' dictum ("The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old, and their only reporting experience consists of being around political campaigns. That’s a sea change. They literally know nothing.")

I'll grant that Trump as a whole is reasonably unique, at least for this century. We have had even more extravagant characters in the past. He is a pale ghost in comparison to Andrew Jackson for example. It is not that any individual thing that Trump does which is unique, it is the accumulation of all the actions together. He seems to operate at a higher tempo and with greater instinct than plodding analysis.

Greenfield highlights one area where Trump is criticized but for which there is a very modern-era counterpart.

Have we ever had a president before this one who so disdains the advice and policies of those who have spent their lives working for the government he leads? Have we ever had a chief executive who is so skeptical of the judgments of career diplomats and military leaders, who rejects the advice of top intelligence leaders, who trusts his family more than those with a lifetime of experience?

Yes we have. And his name was John Fitzgerald Kennedy.

Yep. Greenfield labors to make clear that he neither admires Trump nor approves his actions but he is sufficiently honest to at least acknowledge a reality most the clerisy wish to ignore.

He elaborates.

But in one way they are alike: Throughout Kennedy’s presidency, he came more and more to distrust the received wisdom of the “permanent government” or “deep state” or “military-industrial complex” or whatever term seems apt today. In his case, that skepticism may have saved the planet from nuclear annihilation.

During the tumult of the Trump years, generals like H.R. McMaster and Jim Mattis have been glorified as steadying influences in the room—military wisemen whose opinions on everything from Syria to NATO Trump has recklessly disregarded. And that is true. Trump deserves censure for his refusal to listen to the advice of experienced hands, and his White House can be faulted for jettisoning decades worth of scientific, economic and military expertise.

But in the reflexive rush to criticize Trump, we risk forgetting the lesson of the Kennedy years: There is danger in relying too heavily on the “wisdom” of the elders.

In denigrating Trump and perhaps overemphasizing Kennedy's courage, Greenfield weakens his argument but the facts speak for themselves. The Executive branch is always at risk of being taken hostage by established interests and the deep state. The voters are in their millions far away. The interests and bureaucrats are next door.

Trump has distrusted the Washington establishment from the beginning and events have so far proven him right. Virtually every "catastrophic" decision he has made has ended up playing out to positive outcomes as he forecast and has not failed as the Establishment class claimed.

Very early on in his presidency, I have thought of Kennedy's actions at the Bay of Pigs. A couple of accounts here and here. Kennedy inherited a CIA plan that was along in the planning and to his ultimate dismay agreed to its implementation, largely on the advice of foreign policy experts and the CIA. He felt betrayed by the outcome.

His view of the establishment and experts became even more jaundiced after a similar experience with the Cuban Missile Crisis.

Greenfield works hard to distinguish a wise skepticism on the part of Kennedy versus an ignorant skepticism on the part of Trump. This is a distinction without a difference. Experts and the establishment are moderately useful on occasion. Wisdom is distinguishing the occasions.

From my perspective, Kennedy was wise to be cautiously skeptical of the establishment and the deep state and so is Trump. The establishment track record in terms of results achieved for the average American has been pretty dismal over the past two or even three decades. Indeed we seem to have seen a lot of the toxic blend of ignorance, arrogance, and corruption which has more or less marked the past three administrations.

Trump and Kennedy both had to earn their stripes in the face of an implacable establishment and deep state. The establishment is much larger and more entrenched now than it was fifty years ago. Trump has been under sustained attack (verbal and political) since the day of his victory and from a broader array of bad actors. In contrast, the academy was Kennedy's cheering section (with some exceptions). The press was mixed. The political opposition heterogeneous and therefore perforce more moderate. The entertainment industry enamored with Camelot.

Greenfield is right to draw the parallel, as reluctant as he seems to be to acknowledge it.