Endless speculation has surrounded Donald Trump’s possible pick for a Secretary of State. The world awaits his eventual finalist more eagerly than any other cabinet position. Because of Donald Trump’s rejection of America’s interventionist, pro-war and vehemently anti-Russian party which generally finds favour in both the Democratic and Republican parties, it will be difficult to find an ‘insider’ candidate who intellectually conforms to Trump’s vision for a renewed American foreign policy.
Without question, the war-monger John Bolton would be the worst choice. His arrogant posturing as a bona fide neo-con hawk makes rumours of a possible Bolton appointment both disturbing and disheartening. Ultimately, I do not believe he will be Trump’s selection. Senator Rand Paul (Dr. Ron Paul’s son), has said he would block a Bolton appointment. I applaud Senator Paul for this stance.
Other names floated about have been that of former New York mayor and loyal Trump supporter Rudy Giuliani. Giuliani is for all intents and purposes, a foreign policy lightweight, but this is not necessarily a bad thing. He is a tough but personally likable man who may just reward Trump’s patronage with loyalty in terms of policies consistent with the wishes of the President-elect.
Then there is Newt Gingrich, an unquestionably historically informed and intelligent man, but also, a ruthless opportunist. His opportunism as Secretary of State could cut two ways. On the one hand he may see it as an opportunity to build bridges between the White House and the old establishment Republicans in Congress (his old buddies…and some old enemies too) and in doing so, jeopardise some of the policy independence of Donald Trump.
On the other hand, as a man who likely resents his absence from front-line politics, he may alternatively seek to reward Trump with loyalty whilst looking down his nose at a Republican Party who all but abandoned him in his own time of political need.
There is, however, another name floating about, one who is not widely known on an international level and the most obscure of the major hypothetical candidates. His name is Dana Rohrabacher. Rohrabacher has been a California congressman since 1989. His main interest are foreign affairs and space travel.
His record of policy on foreign affairs is a mixed bag, but the evolution of his political thought gives one hope that short of a Ron Paul, Rand Paul or Pat Buchanan, Rohrabacher may well be the man best suited for the job.
The nadir of his political policy statements came in the 1990s when he stood against Serbian troops as they tried to defend the territorial integrity of Yugoslavia. He later advocated arming the Kosovar Albanian terrorist organisation KLA, a group which for most of the 1990s was proscribed as a terrorist group even by Bill Clinton’s White House. Of course Clinton later launched an illegal war on the Serbian nation in defence of the savage KLA.
His hawkish policies on Iran also leave much to be desired.
However, there is hope and plenty of it. He has publicly repudiated his vote in favour of the Iraq war and believes that American withdrawal from Afghanistan is crucial. In these areas, one can only define Rohrabacher’s positions as correct and honest.
Most recently and perhaps most importantly, he has stood against US antagonistic policies against the Russian Federation. He supported the self-determination of the Crimean people in 2014 and opposed anti-Russian sanctions. He also has stood against the mad policies of Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John Kerry on Syria, calling such policies ‘irrational’.
In the imperfect world that is American politics, Dana Rohrabacher seems to be one of the most suited candidates to be Secretary of State in a Trump administration. He is a clever man and even when he is wrong, he speaks from a position that appears to be guided by sincerity rather than opportunism.
My offer stands to be Donald Trump’s Secretary of State, but for the time being, I think that Dana Rohrabacher would be a suitable choice, at least until the swamp is fully drained.