In the unfolding drama (melodrama?) of American politics, one might observe that the political arena is presently characterized by unpredictable alignments, questionable nominations, and a palpable sense of outsider fervor. Consider the recent wave of appointments and endorsements that, for better or worse, have come to symbolize the current political moment. Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s nomination to Secretary of Health and Human Services, Rep. Matt Gaetz’s nomination to Attorney General, Tulsi Gabbard’s strategic pivot to the Republican Party, and the controversy surrounding the potential appointment of Pete Hegseth to Secretary of Defense: these figures have become emblematic of a broader theme in contemporary American politics—outsider status and its ambiguous relationship with competence. While each of these developments invites distinct criticisms, there are common threads: populist fervor, a disdain for the establishment, and a robust loyalty to President Donald Trump.
Take the RFK Jr. nomination. I do not hate it, and perhaps for reasons that defy conventional partisan logic. RFK Jr.’s potential appointment was not merely a matter of political happenstance but rather a consequence of his complicated relationship with Trumpism. Many forget that, at one time, Kennedy was a key figure in helping to bolster Trump’s anti-establishment credentials. During the 2016 election, Kennedy’s critique of the political establishment, and particularly his stance on vaccine policy, resonated with many of the same voters who gravitated toward Trump’s “drain the swamp” rhetoric, even while Trump later championed his role in developing the very vaccines that RFK would later deride. If Trump were to win the presidency again, it was a logical assumption that a position of some stature—perhaps even a Cabinet appointment—would be offered to Kennedy, whose populist appeal among certain segments of the electorate could be harnessed to solidify broader support.
This dynamic may not sit well with everyone, particularly those who view RFK Jr. as a figure too closely associated with pseudoscience and conspiracy theories. Yet it speaks to the larger picture: the voters, in their collective will, seem to have asked for more of the same outsider politics—those of Trump, Kennedy, and their kind. What’s striking about the RFK nomination is that it’s at least putatively bipartisan, or at least non-partisan. The fact that this is even a discussion is a reflection of a populist moment where loyalty to Trump supersedes traditional political allegiances.
Consider also Mr. Gaetz, whose recent rise has been marked by loud proclamations and flamboyant theatrics. Gaetz represents a case of unforced error in political self-destruction. He is, at best, an undistinguished congressman, except to the extent that being regularly under investigation is a distinguishing characteristic. He is also a former lawyer who hasn’t practiced law in years and whose legal credentials to the highest legal position in the nation seem, put mildly, uninspiring. The United States is home to 1.3 million lawyers, and I wouldn’t rank him in the top million. He may have the fire and rhetoric of a populist, but when it comes to substantive expertise, Gaetz is the very definition of a person who has managed to rise without meaningful contribution to any real legislative or intellectual discourse. His growing prominence within the GOP, especially as it relates to his allegiance to Trump, only underscores the danger of populism’s reliance on unqualified individuals who are defined more by their outsider status than their experience or achievements.
Then, of course, there is Tulsi Gabbard, whose defection from the Democratic Party to the Republicans represents one of the more intriguing political shifts of recent years. Gabbard’s appeal lies in her blend of anti-interventionist foreign policy, independence from party orthodoxy, and staunch criticisms of the political establishment. She is a real coup for the Republican Party, as she possesses the kind of political charisma and genuine popularity that might attract disillusioned Democrats or independents. Yet, while Gabbard has a record as a former congresswoman and a veteran, her experience in national intelligence is non-existent. Her policy stances have often been refreshingly anti-status quo, but sometimes the status quo is not wrong and has endured precisely because of its soundness. Reflexive opposition to the status quo is no greater than reflexive adherence to it.
And then there is the ongoing controversy surrounding the nomination of Pete Hegseth to be our newest Secretary of Defense, a role that demands a mix of experience, leadership, and strategic insight. Mr. Hegseth is, by many measures, more qualified than the Left would like to admit, but certainly less qualified than the Right wishes to acknowledge. The defense establishment is in desperate need of effective leadership, but it is hard to see how an individual without significant experience in the upper echelons of military hierarchy could provide the kind of strategic insight that the nation requires. The nominee’s highest rank, as far as I can tell, was Major, which is only halfway up the chain of command. One can only imagine the skepticism among career military officers who would be asked to follow the lead of someone with such a limited record of advancement. What America needs in this critical role is another Colin Powell—someone with a broad understanding of military strategy, not an upstart with little grounding in the senior military ranks.
In all of these cases, one sees a recurring theme: a loyalty to Trump and an outsider ethos that trumps, so to speak, competence or experience. The Trump loyalists — whether in the form of RFK Jr., Matt Gaetz, Tulsi Gabbard, or Mr. Hegseth — represent an important cultural shift in American politics. They are the anti-establishment figures who have made their mark not through depth of knowledge or proven competence, but through their alignment with our once and future President. And this is a rather curious development: that conservatives, who, by definition, seek to conserve so that we can build on a foundation, now demand outsiders who promise not to conserve, but to undo.
By emphasizing populism and a rejection of the status quo, we may get the government we want, but whether that government is the one we need remains an open question.
