How to judge federal nominees: Stories about bears, sex scandals, conflict of Interest... And what about their *actual views*? what is relevant?

A 7 point nonpartisan guide

It is predictable that every new presidential term is followed by an analysis of the nominees to federal office. Once, Tom Daschle’s hopes were dashed as HHS secretary because he failed to properly report taxes— and, if I remember correctly, it was about paying a nanny in cash— something that is basically ubiquitous in America. But because he paid a nanny in cash, he couldn’t be HHS secretary… wait, what?

As the years pass, the things we learn about politicians and their close ones become more sordid. Doug Emhoff is accused of slapping a woman so hard she spun. Al Franken got cancelled based on an old photo and assorted stories from his comedian days. This year, I can’t keep track of all the salacious stories in the press, including an email from a mother to son.

How should we think about these things? Does the media report these stories so that we actually get better public servants or is it just for the clicks?

Here is my 7 point, non-partisan framework to consider these things

1. First, a reminder. One side lost and one side won. Any analysis of a candidate can’t be: (Insert Name) has these downsides, so the runner up, Jesus Christ, should get the nomination. This isn’t the current person vs. your platonic ideal. It is the current person vs. the most likely next nominee based on who won. So if you dash RFK Jr, you will get…. probably someone who is in the mold of Alex Azar or Scott Gottlieb, a corporatist. Please remember this when you think about nominees. It is this person vs. the Likely next in line, not versus Jesus. Also there is the phenomenon of scarecrow. You won’t be able to oppose the next candidate because they put up the scarecrow and you spilt political capital to knock them down.

2. Is there a crime involved? If the accusation is something that should be handled by the courts or a criminal investigation, then that is probably best. Courts are imperfect of course, but trial by press is worse.

3. Is there hypocrisy (regarding core duties of the job) involved? The reason I found the Jay Varma sex party story so disqualifying, and even published a peer-reviewed article including it, is because

it was such naked hypocrisy. He set public health rules that he didn’t follow, which implies of course, he thought the rules were bullshit, which they were. For this reason, I think I and many others find hypocrisy— when it relates to the core tasks of the job itself— to be disqualifying. It would be like Fauci saying proudly masks work, or it was a wet market leak, but privately believing the opposite or expressing caution. Whoops! I find hypocrisy less interesting if it is confined to someone’s personal life, for instance, knowing RFK Jr thinks Mcdonald’s is trash, but then he eats it once in a photo. Or if someone is a Christian but did things in their personal life that is out of line with Christian values. I find this less relevant because it is not related to the job, and also ubiquitous in the world.

4. Is everyone being investigated equally? Subject to equal disclosure? One thing no one discusses is: is everyone being looked at the same? Some people have facts about their personal life made public because of a rancorous divorce with public court proceedings, and others’ don’t. Some have “friends” who blab to the press, others have real friends. Some have personal diaries made available because their spouse repeatedly threatened to kill themselves, and then asked a friend to release those diaries if they did, and then they did kill themself, and others don’t. The stories that make the news are only the tip of the iceberg of stories out there. And these have always been these types of scandals. Sex, affairs, abortions, drugs, partying, confrontation, fighting, bad tempers, etc etc. These have always existed in human societies. In the days of JFK, it wasn’t discussed by the media. In the modern world it is selectively discussed. If instead, everyone’s dirty laundry was visible, I suspect, most people would be overwhelmed by the sheer volume of it. Only the most egregious violations (and believe me there are those!) would be called out, but there would be a lot more shrugging. To me: an email from a mother to son (which is leaked probably bc she cc’d the ex-wife, who sent it to a friend who dislikes Republicans, who leaked it to the Times), seems imbalanced. If you had the audiotape of every fight between mother and son, when the latter is getting divorced, and listened to them all, then it is fair, but if not, it seems a breach of privacy, and honestly I am not sure how it has anything to do with how many F-16s to build, and DEI in the military. Of course, not everyone kept diaries and had those leaked after the suicide of a former spouse. This is a level of gossip, I find tawdry.

5. What about: How did they do their job? I read recently that one nominee would come to work and staff would think he was drinking. Ok, but this guy isn’t a surgeon, he is a TV host. Are there clips where he acts drunk on TV? Lots of TV hosts/ musicians/ actors do drugs before and after their show. Some take Klonipin (and it prescribed) others take a shot. — is that much different? My take is: judge people by their work product, when that is available. A drunk surgeon might have screwed up in ways hard to tell— so that is bad imo. A drunk TV host has a video of the performance, which can be replayed— can you detect a bad performance? Could it actual make him better on TV?

6. What about: What are their views? And *big note of caution* What about people with no track record of views? In my opinion, the people in politics with a range of views— some correct, others incorrect— are acceptable, but the worst ones are those with no track record of views, or those who only stuck to the script. Ashish Jha and Scott Gottliebs and Robert Califfs and a million others I can’t name b/c I forget them— these are the people who are the problem. They just push the status quo, maybe the occasional groupthink error, but have no guiding philosophy and are riddled with contradictions and have no principles— except kiss up to one party. They are just gears in the machine. They might be fine if people vote for status-quo, but they never do. My whole life politicians promise hope, change, reform, doing better. In spaces like health care, that means shaking things up— big changes. Some will be correct, and others incorrect, but people would rather have this than no substantive changes, or just drifting further into corporate capture— which is what the last 4 FDA commissioners have done.

7. What checks and balances exist? This is something that no one discusses, but it far more dangerous when power rests with people on the same team as the media. The unethical COVID vaccine mandates sailed by without opposition because it was proposed by team Biden and the media is team Biden. The lab leak hypothesis was opposed by Fauci (to avoid his own culpability) and that ban was enforced by Facebook because they are both on team Dems. (At least were) RFK Jr’s Pronouncements will be opposed at every turn because he is Team Trump and universities and the media are Team Newsom. I am less worried about wrong views held in positions of antagonism— a principle the founders of this country understood well— because of checks and balances.

This is my first pass articulating these principles, and I probably will reword or rethink them a little bit, but I think that is general my guiding spirit. The future will probably be worse. We will have audiotapes and videos and surveillance cameras from people’s personal lives, and to me, those will not be equally documented for all people, creating a huge random punishment filter. I don’t look forward to it. All of this leads to my final point.

8. The more you make public scrutiny for these jobs so shameless and tawdry, the only people who pursue them are not those without scandals, but those who don’t care, and also good people fearful of imagined scandal. It is not good for picking the top talent.