regarding your editorial <u+201c> the emerging trump cabinet <u+201d> (nov. 19): you offer a rather objective assessment of donald trump<u+2019>s recent cabinet selections. unfortunately, you couldn<u+2019>t resist the urge to slide in an ideological knife at the end. the stronger need for <u+201c>diversity<u+201d> of opinion as a resource was during the campaign, when it was necessary to explain his position to a wide range of ideological mind-sets. managing a large organization, in this case the federal government, requires a staff having ideologies matching that of the chief executive. the diversity of contributions needed is in areas of expertise matching the organization<u+2019>s mission, not conflicting viewpoints on the mission of the enterprise. interestingly your example of how to avoid the perceived evil of <u+201c>group-think and closed policy loops<u+201d> is president obama<u+2019>s appointees. the resulting weakness was the apparent prioritization of ideology over expertise. the results of that experiment are now history, including the shambles of libya, syria, iraq, russian annexation of crimea and the muslim invasion of central europe. the need is to assure that we elect a manager with an ideology supportive of our national welfare and skilled enough to fit staff selections to that mission. since the body of your treatise appears to express at least grudging approval of our selection<u+2019>s ability so far to meet the second requirement, please be honest enough to openly begrudge mr. trump<u+2019>s ideology, not his management skills. bill mills sterling, va.
coherence, not diversity, matters for cabinets - wsj
noauthor