How liberal groups should respond to Trump’s Cabinet picks

The next four years may well be a disaster for the environment, for workplace safety rules, for civil rights and liberties, for reproductive rights, and for a wide range of matters that the American left cares about.

They will, however, be a bonanza for the bottom lines of the groups that are organized around these issues.

To be sure, the American Civil Liberties Union does sincerely care about protecting civil liberties, and the League of Conservation Voters does sincerely care about the environment. But it is in the interest of these groups to use the first few months of the Donald Trump presidency to strengthen themselves. In order to do this, they have to be strategic in choosing how, and when, to speak out in opposition to Trump’s activities.

Historically, interest groups have benefited from threat, or the perception of threat. It is much easier for groups to raise money when they can credibly claim that they are defending members and supporters against a hostile government. It is easier to do this when groups can personify the threat. The easiest time to do this is when a president is appointing people to positions of power.

That is, it’s not just that Trump is a threat to civil liberties, it’s that he has appointed as his chief strategist a fellow with a history of saying, or encouraging others to say, racist or anti-Semitic things. Or it’s not that Trump has unrealistic views about the problems facing African-Americans, it is that he has nominated someone to serve as attorney general who has already been rejected for a federal judgeship for saying openly racist things.

{mosads}There’s nothing unique about this sort of approach; conservatives have done similar things when Democrats have held the presidency. Most Americans of a certain age can remember orchestrated efforts to undermine Cabinet appointees such as James Watt (Ronald Reagan’s secretary of the Interior); Sen. John Tower, Republican of Texas (George H.W. Bush’s secretary of Defense nominee) and Jocelyn Elders (surgeon general for Bill Clinton).

Presidents usually don’t want to expend political capital defending one wayward Cabinet secretary, so sooner or later, all of these people were forced by public or congressional pressure to step down. Supreme Court nominations serve as a particularly good moment to focus opposition because they happen outside of the normal political cycle, and groups with differing issue goals can often combine forces to criticize a particular nominee.

Even when groups are not successful in derailing appointments or confirmations, these targets’ status as public enemy was good for fundraising. Vice President Dick Cheney, for instance, was surely responsible for raising millions of dollars for Democratic causes.

How might this play out in the upcoming months? Here are a few scenarios:

Make an example of people early. It is easier to block the confirmation of a controversial nominee than it is to remove someone who’s already in office. Given that an incoming president tends to face an opposition party in some disarray, an early effort to challenge Cabinet appointees can boost morale and unify opposition.

Hold your fire, because you don’t know what’s coming next. Trump’s selection of Steven Bannon is a good example here. The Anti-Defamation League has come out in opposition to Bannon, but other Jewish groups have not. This may be in part because Bannon’s allegedly anti-Semitic views are hard to substantiate (the statements in question were published on Breitbart News, which Bannon led from 2012 to 2016, but Bannon himself did not write them), and in part because Bannon’s job is not subject to confirmation.

Flood the zone. It is entirely possible that there will simply be too many people appointed by Trump who are objectionable to liberals. Ultimately, some unsavory characters may get a free pass simply because it’s hard to target everyone.

Ultimately, the problem for liberal groups is not Trump’s appointees, but Trump himself. There’s precious little that these groups can do to stop Trump from appointing whomever he wants. Scoring points early, however, will be vital for these groups, if only to rally their members and prepare for what are certain to be a long four years.

Robert G. Boatright is a professor of political science at Clark University and the director of the National Institute for Civil Discourse Research Network.

The views expressed by contributors are their own and not the views of The Hill.