Jonah Goldberg: Kirstjen Nielsen wasn’t right for Trump’s ‘bad cop’ role |
Featured Commentary

Jonah Goldberg: Kirstjen Nielsen wasn’t right for Trump’s ‘bad cop’ role

Former U.S. Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen speaks with Border Patrol agents in Calexico, Calif., Oct. 26.

Summoned to the White House last Sunday, embattled and apparently overwhelmed secretary of the Department of Homeland Security Kirstjen Nielsen arrived with a resignation letter in tow. “Despite our progress in reforming homeland security for a new age,” it read, “I have determined that it is the right time for me to step aside.” But President Trump was the faster draw, tweeting that she was out before she could post it.

Nielsen was in an impossible position. There are 22 agencies reporting into DHS, but her job performance was only ever going to be based on immigration. And the crisis at our southern border is the product of two competing narratives, both of them detached from reality.

The president has tried to paint the surge in migrants from Central America as a hostile invasion. The Democrats insisted, at least until recently, that there was no immigration crisis. The truth is that there is a crisis — a refugee crisis. Days before her “You’re fired” moment, Nielsen sent a letter to Congress all but begging lawmakers to take the catastrophe seriously, warning that the border security system was approaching the “breaking point.”

It’s not exactly blindingly novel to point out that the president’s criteria for competence is unconventional. To be sure, he likes good numbers he can tout at rallies and in interviews — jobs created, stock market highs, drugs seized, immigrants apprehended, etc. Those are fairly routine benchmarks. With a rising number of migrants inundating the border (and no new border wall to seen), Nielsen failed to provide much on this count.

But her political predicament was larger than that. Trump also demands — and rewards — loyalty, particularly in the form of effusive praise on cable news. Nielsen tried on that score, but she was never particularly convincing, often sounding as if she were reading from a script she didn’t like.

There’s another measure of political value the president prizes in his lieutenants and surrogates: He likes a good foil. In foreign policy, for instance, Trump has played the disruptor, questioning NATO, blowing up trade deals. Meanwhile his foreign policy and defense team played a reassuring role, pushing the broom behind the bull.

In domestic politics, however, Trump loves controversy but struggles with confrontation. (That’s why he so often fires people over Twitter from a distance.)

From his lifelong admiration for Roy Cohn, the bare-knuckled brawler who served as his mentor, to his hiring of legal and political brutes like Michael Cohen and Corey Lewandowski, Trump enjoys it when others play the heavy for him so he can claim to be the nice guy. Right now it’s White House aide Stephen Miller who is the ideological enforcer on immigration.

Miller is a consistent immigration restrictionist, opposed to legal and illegal arrivals, and when Miller has his ear, so is the president. But in his last State of the Union address, Trump blurted out — off script — that he wanted more legal immigrants than ever. Tellingly, when the border crisis first flared up last year, the White House zigzagged on its response. Was separating families at the border an intentional policy meant to deter further immigration or a regrettable result of something Democrats had done? Trump has been all over the map on the question. But Miller said it was intentional, while Nielsen insisted that it was outrageously “offensive” to suggest the administration would ever use family separation in such a punitive fashion.

This schizophrenic messaging is a byproduct of Trump’s tendency to use reality show tropes as a lodestar. “This is why I was so great on ‘The Apprentice,’” Trump told then-House Speaker Paul Ryan after his televised vow to take credit for a government shutdown in December. According to a report last week in the Washington Post, Trump added that the ratings for this Oval Office confrontation with Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer were “great.”

Nielsen’s Achilles’ heel was that she was miscast for her role. She was mediocre at best at public displays of sycophancy, and she was even worse at playing the bad cop.

Trump has told aides he wants someone tougher on immigration policy. Whether he actually gets his bad cop remains to be seen. But odds are good that whoever it is will be better at playing one on TV.

Jonah Goldberg’s latest book is “Suicide of the West.”

Jonah Goldberg is editor-in-chief of The Dispatch and the host of The Remnant podcast. His Twitter handle is @JonahDispatch

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.