It will be remembered as one of the most awkward scenes of an administration replete with them. Two Cabinet members of the Jewish faith standing at President Donald Trump’s side as he drew a moral equivalence between the white supremacists and neo-Nazis who rallied in Charlottesville and those who came to protest their hate-filled message.
Standing to the President’s right, National Economic Council director Gary Cohn and Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin looked stricken. They had shown up for a press conference on infrastructure, only to be cast as supporting actors in a bizarre and distasteful scene. It was as if they had been invited for a ride, only to discover, to their horror, that they suddenly were involved in a stickup.
Mnuchin made a vain effort to defend the President’s comments on the Sunday shows, undoubtedly winning points for loyalty from the boss, but earning the disapprobation of many others in and out of the Jewish community for failing to roundly condemn the indefensible.
In contrast, Cohn, whose pained expression was most evident at the President’s press conference, said little after that August 15 debacle.
That is, until Friday.
Now the silence of Cohn has been broken and the former Wall Street executive has opened up in an interview in The Financial Times about his discomfort, strongly and admirably rejecting the President’s comments, while answering the question asked openly by many of his old friends and associates: Why didn’t he just quit?
“I’m a patriotic American,” Cohn said, explaining that he felt a duty to continue to serve the country despite his anger and unhappiness with the president’s remarks.
Cynics may conclude that Cohn’s decision to hang on might also have something to do with rumors that he is in line to succeed Fed chair Janet Yellen when her term expires next year. Others would point to the seductive nature of power. For my part, I tend to believe published stories that Cohn wrestled with leaving, even going so far as drafting a letter of resignation, but pulled back because he felt he could do more good — or, perhaps, prevent more bad — by staying inside the turbulent White House.
When rumors swirled about Cohn’s imminent departure, the markets, which have been on an ebullient trajectory, took a dive. He is in a widely reported battle with economic nationalists who resonate with Trump over protectionist policies. He is the point man on the President’s looming campaign for tax reform. A Democrat, he sees himself as a moderating influence in the White House.
So it’s easy to see how Cohn might have been persuaded — or persuaded himself — to stay, in the same way the President’s national security team of Mattis, Tillerson and McMaster and chief of staff Kelly seem determined to tolerate Trump’s tantrums in order to prevent more cataclysmic eruptions.
Perhaps they see themselves as the thin line — not simply between America and an inherently dangerous world but between the world and an impulsive, dangerous president.
The price Cohn apparently demanded for staying was the freedom to make his own displeasure clear over the President’s offensive remarks. And Mr. Trump uncharacteristically may accept this small bit of apostasy to keep Cohn, his key link to Wall Street and the markets.
But for Cohn and the remaining establishment pillars within the administration, the road ahead likely will get harder.
This President is not going to change and they will be forced to confront over time whether by staying, they are managing his worst instincts — or simply enabling them.