Highlighting Republican corruption has emerged as a leading strategy for Democrats looking to take back Congress in 2018 and the presidency in 2020. EPA head Scott Pruitt’s unethical behavior is a particularly juicy example: the man is a preening peacock who has demanded unprecedented security, flown first class repeatedly on the taxpayer dime, and got a sweetheart deal on a condo co-owned by an energy lobbyist’s wife (and then resisted moving out, despite his landlords’ entreaties). This is to say nothing of the fact that he’s not doing his job of working to protect the environment, but instead is cozying up to the businesses that would prefer to treat our common air and water like their own personal ashtray.
Americans tend not to like feeling ripped off by their government, and President Trump is playing with fire in tolerating this level of corruption. But of course, his primary motivation to be president is likely to make a buck, so the idea of him tolerating or not tolerating corruption is probably not the most accurate way to frame the situation. I’d argue that a lot of Trump voters welcomed his self-serving approach to the presidency, assuming that as supporters they’d benefit, at least indirectly, from his particular brand of cronyism when applied to federal policy and largesse. Something of this mindset seemed to be reflected in comments by White House spokesperson Sara Sanders, who suggested in an interview that Pruitt’s corruption might be balanced out by his work in enacting Donald Trump’s agenda. Corruption, in other words, is all right so long as a larger good is also being served.
In this respect, Pruitt’s behavior can be seen as something of a stress test for the corruption Trump’s supporters are willing to accept. Do they really believe that it’s all right for an official to rip off taxpayers, so long as he’s also doing the president’s bidding and, by extension, fighting for those very voters? In other words, will this direct affront to themselves as taxpayers be excused by the sense that the corruption is for the greater good of actually benefitting them by helping the president deliver on, say, more jobs in the coal industry?
The president’s willingness, at least so far, to defend the EPA chief supports the theory that Trump understands the bargain he’s made with his supporters — in this perverse reasoning, his willingness to tolerate corruption by his cabinet members is also a sign of his willingness to tolerate corruption in support of his base. Clearly, though, events are pushing their credulity to the limit.
Sadly for the president, the sense that such behavior is outrageous is far easier to understand for the majority of Americans who don’t support him, and who will be even less inclined to vote for either him or the GOP going forward based on such abuse of taxpayer dollars and trust. It would be so easy for Trump to make examples of at least the most outlandish corruption, as a way of faking concern to appeal to more persuadable voters, but luckily for the survival of the republic, this is one area where he seems unable to act deviously.
I've only talked about self-aggrandizing behavior here; but of course the other side of the coin is the failure of Scott Pruitt and other cabinet members to serve the public interest. With Pruitt, you see this in his efforts to undo a broad swathe of environmental regulations, from automobile emissions standards to the presence of lead in paint. But as both The New York Times and Politico detail this weekend, Pruitt's eagerness to serve corporate interests at the expense of public health has been matched by his incompetence in actually doing this work. Malign intent matched by ineptness: the Trump administration in a nutshell. But these bozos have another three years to push through their foul agenda, though, more than enough time to correct their initial mistakes and do lasting damage.
