I take it as a sign of hope that sharp reporting and incisive commentary have been the hallmark of the Rob Porter scandal, even as this incident confirms — as if we needed further confirmation — our worst fears about the morally compromised nature of this White House. Many in the media are still able to recognize a real scandal when they see one, and the outrage expressed by so many other observers shows that we’re not yet numbed to this American nightmare, even as each week brings new revelations and details about the still-to-be-numbered circles of hell through which the body politic is forced to descend: our own modern-day Winthropian harrowing.
As White House staff secretary, Porter was in charge of passing on state documents to President Trump; but his role was larger than even this important one, as he also performed functions such as assisting in drafting the president’s State of the Union speech. In other words, he was a man privy to the deepest secrets of our country, and who clearly had the president’s trust. Credible accusations of his abusive behavior by multiple women, including two ex-wives, meant that he was not able to gain a permanent security clearance, but only held a temporary one for the entire time he performed this highly sensitive job. One major concern about someone with such personal vulnerabilities is that he could be blackmailed by someone using this compromising information; and this is the reason the FBI ultimately indicated it could not give him a permanent clearance.
The irony is rich here, as Donald Trump’s campaign was likely won on its insistence that Hillary Clinton did not protect national secrets when she used a private server for her emails. But because everything about the Age of Trump is overdetermined and multi-layered, Porter’s story also intersects with another great theme of our time, the misogyny embodied by the Trump campaign and the #MeToo backlash. As New York Times columnist Michelle Goldberg suggests, Porter’s identity as an abuser ensured that he would be welcome at this White House, even if his background would have disqualified him from service in any previous one:
It’s fair to think that Trump sets the bar for what’s considered acceptable in this White House. Porter’s father, Roger Porter, a Harvard professor who worked for presidents including Gerald Ford and Ronald Reagan, once wrote of how presidents create administrative cultures: “Scholars of management today write much about the ‘tone at the top.’ Like all presidents, Gerald Ford established a tone that permeated the executive branch.” Trump, evidently, established one as well.
A telling example of this trickle-down effect can be found in how Porter defended himself from the allegations to other members of the White House. According to the New York Times, Porter told White House counsel Donald McGahn "about the possible allegations because he was concerned that what he characterized as false charges from aggrieved women who were out to destroy him could derail his F.B.I. background check, according to one of the two people briefed on the matter.” Could there be a more Trump-favor-currying defense than to suggest that the charges were lies from women "out to destroy him"? As with Trump's dismissal of the allegations against himself and others, there is an underlying theme of women being vengeful and mendacious for no reason at all but simply out of inherent batshit craziness.
Vox writer Jane Coaston says that Trump’s own legacy of abusing women set the dynamics not only for the White House’s approach to Porter, but also for its response to the various allegations against White House officials and those it has supported, from Steve Bannon and former Trump campaign manager Corey Lewandowski to failed GOP Senate candidate and alleged pedophile Roy Moore:
For the White House, the politics are simple: Protect Trump. Because Trump himself is accused of assaulting dozens of women, they’ve had to lower the bar for male behavior so that even he can meet it. Any allegation of misconduct made against anyone close to Trump, then, must be dismissed as if it were being made against Trump himself.
This observation captures, simply and directly, the fundamental reason that this White House will ever and always be on the side of abusers of women: to even acknowledge that such abusers exist is to open the door to admitting that Donald Trump could be an abuser himself. And the deeper source for this logical endpoint is Donald Trump's immoral character, as his abuse of women in the past stems from a place of profound disrespect and arguably hatred for womankind.
* * *
Yet the Rob Porter scandal has exposed one other troubling fact about this administration that is not directly connected to its contempt for women and frat house-like embrace of bros who abuse. This looks like it may be the incident that finally ends General John Kelly’s position as White House Chief of Staff, as it appears that he covered and advocated for Porter despite knowledge of his abusive past; as such, it’s a good time to remind ourselves of the perniciousness of Donald Trump having brought so many generals into top administration positions in the first place. Of the three major appointments — Kelly, General James Mattis as Secretary of Defense, and General H.R. McMaster as National Security Advisor — it's Kelly who has most fully demonstrated the reality of the dangers of bringing military men into civilian roles.
Who can forget those heady early days of Kelly’s tenure, when there was a widespread consensus, across both elected officials and the media, that his appointment was a good thing, since he would bring order to the chaos of the White House? But very soon, Kelly began to reveal his true character, as a sympathizer and accomplice to Donald Trump’s worst qualities. Kelly slandered a sitting member of Congress, who just happened to be African-American, and never apologized to her even after the actual facts were made known; he made disturbing statements about American service members being superior to civilians; he recently called DACA recipients too “scared” and “lazy” to seek extensions of their status. And this is just a small sampling of his misdeeds.
But my point is not simply that John Kelly has turned out to be a morally compromised man. It’s that both Kelly and the Trump White House sought to employ his military service as proof of his unimpeachable rectitude and apolitical loyalty to the United States over partisanship. This, we can clearly see, was not only a scam, but a deeply chilling and dangerous one. Poll after poll shows the U.S. military to be one of the most admired institutions in the United States; I suspect that one of the reasons for this is that it’s become identified with competence, teamwork, and a sort of generic patriotism beyond party or faction (whether or not these are valid assessments of the military is another question). As Kelly repeatedly acted and spoke in ways that contradicted his technocratic role, criticism of the man was absorbed by the reserves of goodwill based on his military service. But as time went on, this goodwill began to be depleted, so that at this point it is undeniable that he shares many of the same backwards beliefs as his unfit boss, so that he is no longer credibly seen as some sort of neutral actor.
But to call out Kelly’s bad faith is not enough; we also need to recognize the darker political move in essentially using the goodwill citizens associate with the U.S. military to help advance a host of right-wing maneuvers, from demonizing immigrants to denigrating women. If nothing else, Kelly’s tenure has demonstrated that concerns about such a move are not at all abstract. Kelly’s military service was indeed employed in defense of a right-wing agenda, a fact reinforced by solid evidence at this point that Kelly shares a right-wing belief system. Kelly abused his own service for partisan ends, but the broader offense is a White House that enabled this situation in the first place.
