Summary
Donald Trump’s transition team has bypassed standard FBI background checks for key cabinet nominees, relying instead on private investigators, as reported by CNN.
This breaks decades-old norms meant to vet candidates for criminal history and conflicts of interest.
Controversial appointees include Matt Gaetz (attorney general), Tulsi Gabbard (director of national intelligence), and Robert F. Kennedy Jr. (health secretary), all facing scrutiny for past investigations, pro-Russian views, or personal admissions.
Critics argue Trump seeks to undermine traditional vetting, with potential security risks tied to bypassing these checks.
No system of rules or laws can fully account for people acting in bad faith.
I think the founding fathers counted on social shame to limit bad faith actors in government. A dishonorable person used to become a social pariah and might even get killed in a duel back in the 18th century. People wouldn’t associate with them, sign a contract with them, or lend them money. But now?
You obliquely touched on a pet theory of mine. We s a society have for decades now rallied against public shaming and bullying and that kind of thing, but I wonder if we’ve gone too far with it —antisocial behaviours are left to run unchecked, whereas 100 years ago these people would have been mercilessly mocked to their face every day. Without the fear of that public mockery and ridicule, we get this.
Trying to protect neurodivergent people unfortunately shelters bad behavior as well as benign. Yes, the antisocial guy trying to start fights and hurt animals would’ve been driven out of society, but so would the harmless kid who needs things to be arranged by the last letter of its name or something. I’ve got some idiosyncrasies that make certain aspects of “fitting in” require more effort than most, and I definitely felt the difference in attitude towards how I struggled as I got older. Another hard to control factor is that malicious people can game those same attitudes that help people who simply can’t understand why they are different.
Yes, that’s the catch. Maybe we can encourage ridicule directed only at “society-level” behaviours and make it clear that individual quirks are off-limits.
I touched on one of my pet theories as well; the Constitution was written assuming dueling would be a safety valve. Holding office was originally limited to land-holding men, so the high class. They were mostly the only ones that did dueling back then. It was technically illegal, but it was a law for the common folks. At the time dueling was often done with pistols, which was paradoxically safer than swords. A duel with a sword always ended with blood. A pistol duel could end with both parties missing (often intentionally) and be considered a finished matter. Both parties would agree to a compromise that preserved the honor of each.
It sounds insane, but I suggest bringing back dueling. Just for federal elected officials though. Just the threat of a duel would make the assholes who take office just to enrich themselves run for the hills. They would never actually put their own ass on the line. You would actually have to believe in something enough to die for it to take office.
Our social circles are too big to do it reliably.
Now they publish it on TikTok and collect likes and followers.