How Incompetence Causes Panic
Thoughts on Trump's Appointments, Mobsters, and Dictators (Vol. 4; Issue 49)
A major concept in psychoanalytic developmental psychology—the idea of the holding environment—helps understand how governments ideally function. Donald Winnicott (1975), a pediatrician-turned-psychoanalyst, described “holding” as occurring when:
the environment is holding the individual, and at the same time the individual knows of no environment and is at one with it. (p. 183)
Referring to caregiver-infant relationships, Winnicott means that babies who are “held” experience feelings of peace, comfort, and tranquility. Parents who provide such care for children he calls “good enough,” acknowledging the impossibility of perfection. Parents who neglect or abuse their children create feelings of terror in them. Over the years, Winnicott’s phrase expanded in meaning. A holding environment might refer to how you feel about a friendship, a new apartment, or the fit between you and a university. In like manner, a good enough government holds its citizens in an almost invisible way, showing care with little intrusion.
Traffic signals offer a simple example. They can be annoying, for sure, but you rarely think of how they prevent you from getting into accidents and allow traffic to flow smoothly. Good enough governments assist the poor, ensure security for the elderly, educate citizens, protect from disasters, and maintain peace (with traffic control being a benign example). On the international stage, they manage trade in a fair manner, negotiate with other nations when conflicts arise, and stand prepared to defend the country if necessary.
In earlier newsletters, I expressed alarm at the possibility of another Trump presidency. He represents a clear threat to democracy—a view obviously shared by many others. Trump’s behavior since his election only elevates such fears. He acts more like a mob-boss or dictator than a democratic leader. Trump’s nomination of Tulsi Gabbard as Director of National Intelligence and of Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. as Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) illustrates the trend.
HHS, a massive government institution, provides essential human services and fosters advances in public health. It employs 80,000 federal workers. Overseeing the HHS requires competency in administrating a highly complicated organization and aptitudes for science and medicine. The HHS Director, a cabinet level position, advises the president on health-related issues.
Kennedy, the son of the famed senator Robert Kennedy, is an anti-vaccination activist, conspiracy enthusiast, and spreader of Covid-19 vaccine misinformation. He trained as an environmental attorney. Kennedy’s lack of experience in managing a large organization, in public health, and in critical thinking leaves him poorly qualified to run the HHS. His main qualification, it appears, is that he, like Gabbard, displays undying devotion to Trump.
The Director of National Intelligence (DNI) oversees a smaller organization, employing around 2,000 people. However, its responsibilities are immense. The institution, established in 2004 in response to the 9/11 World Trade Center and Pentagon attacks, collects, analyzes, and integrates intelligence from 18 different intelligence agencies, such as the CIA, the Office of Naval Intelligence, and others. Like the HHS Director, the DNI directly advises the President.
Gabbard’s qualifications for protecting the security of the United States are abysmal. She served in the Hawaiian National Guard and the US Army Reserve before turning to politics. Gabbard was elected as the US Representative for Hawaii’s 2nd congressional district (2013 to 2021). In 2017, she expressed support for, and visited, the murderous Syrian dictator Bashar al Assad. Most recently, she served as a stand-in host for the Tucker Carlson Tonight show on Fox. Nothing in her professional background reveals expertise in management or competency in understanding intelligence information. Her credentials consist primarily of her zeal for Trump. And, like Kennedy, her hold on power will essentially end should she fall out of Trump’s favor.
How do these Trump appointments resemble mob bosses and dictators? Leaders of the Sicilian Mafia are called Godfathers or the “Bosses of all bosses” (Capos dei capi). They direct “soldiers” ranging from thieves to attorneys. Whatever their levels of competence, these underlings must display unquestionable loyalty. They literally risk their lives should they even think of quitting the mob. In this realm then, loyalty is all that matters. It trumps competency.
Along these same lines, dictators deliberately appoint poorly qualified persons to run their government’s major institutions. Historian and journalist Anne Applebaum (2024) describes how, by doing so, they place these “leaders” in a bind: Their hold on power depends on their loyalty to the dictator, and the dictators thereby control them. Once again, loyalty matters more than competency.
According to a December 8th New York Times article, recent applicants for positions in the Trump administration were screened for loyalty. Those considered disobedient—because they decried the violent Jan. 6th attack on the Capitol or believed President Biden won in 2020—were immediately disqualified. They lost their bids not because of lack of ability, but because of insufficient fealty.
Stolid institutions benefit from shake-ups, but not in the way Trump imagines. Efforts at reform are sure to fail if conducted by inept leaders. It hardly takes an MBA degree to realize that leadership requires, at a minimum, competency. Would you want air traffic controllers supervised by school crossing-guards? After all, it could be argued, it’s just a more sophisticated mode of traffic control. Or what if a short-order cook ran your local utility company? Both jobs require an aptitude to process sequential information, one might say.
But these examples pale in comparison to the perils of these two Trump appointments. They risk destroying how citizens feel “held” by a rules-bound, orderly, and quiet government. If Trump succeeds in requiring only allegiance from his lieutenants, government will, instead, become loud and frightening.
On December 9th, 75 Nobel Prize winners signed a letter urging senators not to confirm Kennedy. Seeming to invite the critique, Kennedy displayed his credentials by shedding his shirt and bragging about his workouts at Gold’s Gym. Meanwhile, another pandemic awaits, already simmering as the most recent bird flu mutates towards human compatibility. Will Kennedy rise to the challenge of protecting the health of Americans?
Even more seriously, will Gabbard objectively screen intelligence to guard against another 9/11-like attack? Syria’s government collapsed in less than 10 days, wars rage in Ukraine and Israel, Iran races to build nuclear weapons, and an already nuclear armed North Korea threatens. Foreign relations are at their most unstable level in almost a century. Competency in intelligence gathering will be crucial in preventing further instability.
It is unsurprising that so many Americans refuse to consume news since the election. It terrifies. The levels of anxiety among our citizens continue to rise. Trump’s proposed appointments only accelerates these jitters. Contrary to the concept of the “good enough mother,” Trump metaphorically drops babies. As but one of 360 million American citizens, we have few options but to wait and see what happens if incompetents run our country’s major institutions.
Enjoying this newsletter?
And check out my book, Lover, Exorcist, Critic: Understanding Depth Psychotherapy, available on Amazon.
References
Applebaum, A. (2024). Autocracy, Inc.: The Dictators Who Want to Run the World. New York: Doubleday.
Winnicott, D. W. (1975). Chapter XXII. Metapsychological and Clinical Aspects of Regression within the Psycho-Analytical Set-Up [1954]. Through Paediatrics to Psycho-Analysis, 100:278-294
Very well said!
The photo says it all! A pleasure to hear your take.