BY STEVEN ROESCH
A series of German folktales involves the citizens of a make-believe town called Schilda.
When problems arise, the people of Schilda are sure to find a dimwitted and ineffective way to handle them. In one story, they even wind up burning the whole place down.
Their capacity for foolishness would be hard to match, and readers have been enchanted by their antics for years.
A few weeks ago, The Economist—inspired by Donald Trump’s choices for his new administration—came up with its word of the year. They picked kakistocracy, “the rule of the worst.”
Looking at those who might well soon be managing various key areas of the federal government, it almost seems that our next chief executive is taking his cues from Schilda’s methods.
Observers in responsible media outlets all agree that what’s informed such choices is these candidates’ loyalty to the new President. Of course, prioritizing loyalty as a criterion means setting aside other considerations—things like expertise, for example.
It’s also hard to square the prioritization of loyalty to a specific leader with a government that’s supposed to be “of the people, by the people, for the people.”
The reason that many conservatives have for supporting such individuals is that they’ll bash the “deep state,” but it’s hard to see how their CVs give them the wherewithal to build something new and worthwhile in the place of this putative nemesis.
Recently, other prominent nations, among them China, have argued that the United States is a country in decline, its public life characterized by chaos and weakness. Installing Trump’s choices in key positions would add credibility to that narrative and weaken our reputation in the world community.
Early in the coming year, the Senate will deliberate about these candidates. Depending on the outcome of that process, our nation, or at least portions of it, might well involve a “rule of the worst.”
In one story about Schilda, the townspeople worked hard to construct a new town hall. One thing they overlooked, though: putting in windows. When the city council chambers inside were still dark, the mayor came up with what he figured was a fine plan. They just needed to collect sunlight in sacks, he told his fellow citizens. And so everyone gathered sunlight in sacks, brought them into the new city hall, and opened them up.
Somehow, though, the council chambers were still bathed in darkness.
The stories about Schilda are delightful, entertaining and a joy to read.
What could happen in various parts of the federal government, should the Senate confirm some of these folks, would be no laughing matter.
