Democrats Hope “Mad Dog” Will Calm Trump Down

James Mattis, Trump’s pick for defense secretary, is seen as a moderating force on the Cabinet.

Riccardo Savi/AP

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.


President-elect Donald Trump has aroused considerable concern among Democrats by nominating a secretary of energy who thinks the Department of Energy shouldn’t exist, a secretary of labor who opposes raising the minimum wage, a secretary of state who’s been cozy with Russia, and an attorney general who has had to spend an awful lot of time convincing people he’s not a racist.

Which made it all the more striking when a Trump Cabinet nominee got a friendly—and even laudatory—reception from the minority party in the Senate when he appeared for a confirmation hearing on Thursday. Retired Gen. James Mattis, up for secretary of defense, requires a congressional waiver to join the Cabinet because he’s been out of the military for fewer than seven years. But Democrats on the Senate Armed Services Committee appeared eager to grant him that waiver, in part because they see Mattis, nicknamed “Mad Dog,” as a moderating force on Trump’s far-right inner circle.

Sen. Jack Reed (D-R.I.), the top Democrat on the committee, told the retired Marine Corps general that “many have supported the waiver legislation in your confirmation because they believe you will be, to paraphrase Thomas Jefferson, ‘the saucer that cools the coffee.'”

Even Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), who voted against the waiver, told Mattis, “If there were ever a case for a waiver of that principle, it is you, in this moment in our history. I believe that your appreciation for the costs of war in blood, treasure, and lives and the impact on veterans afterward will enable you to be a check on rash and potentially ill-considered use of military force by a president-elect who perhaps lacks that same appreciation.”

Mattis’ thoughts on Russia and NATO helped keep his three-hour confirmation hearing relatively conflict-free, unlike those earlier this week for attorney general nominee Jeff Sessions and secretary of state nominee Rex Tillerson. Trump has been liberal in his praise of Russian President Vladimir Putin and has called NATO—the military alliance formed in response to threats from the Soviet Union—”obsolete.” Mattis called NATO “the most successful military alliance in modern world history, maybe ever,” and he was willing to castigate Putin and discuss Russian threats to US interests. “The most important thing is that we recognize the reality of what we deal with with Mr. Putin,” he told the committee, “and we recognize that he is trying to break the North Atlantic alliance, and that we take the integrated steps—diplomatic, economic, military, and the alliance steps—to defend ourselves where we must.”

Mattis said he agrees with Trump that the United States should engage Russia and identify areas of cooperation, but that we have to be realistic. “Russia has chosen to be a strategic competitor,” said Mattis, who was removed from his military post in 2013 after the Obama administration felt he was too hawkish on Iran. “They’re an adversary in key areas. I’m all for engagement, but we also have to recognize reality and what Russia is up to. And there’s decreasing areas where we can engage cooperatively and increasing areas where we’re going to have to confront Russia.”

He added, “I would not have taken this job if I didn’t believe the president-elect was open to my advice on this or any other matter.”

Advocates of women in the military have expressed concern that Mattis could roll back rules allowing women to serve in combat roles. Mattis co-edited the 2016 book Warriors & Citizens: American Views of Our Military, in which he wrote that “an uninformed public is permitting political leaders to impose an accretion of social conventions that are diminishing the combat power of our military.” But on Thursday, he said, “I have no plan to oppose women in any aspect of our military,” and he later added that he had no issues with gays serving openly.

“Frankly, senator,” he said, “I’ve never cared much about two consenting adults and who they go to bed with.”

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate