Trump has made his decision on the big cabinet post — secretary of State — and it’s ExxonMobil CEO, Rex Tillerson.
 
There is no way to sugar-coat this: Tillerson is a disastrous pick. Those who share the mentality of transnational corporate leaders like Tillerson are pre-conditioned to supporting the foreign policy establishment mindset on critical issues so as not to upset the applecart and what’s good for business.
 
While much of his issue portfolio is a blank slate, what we know about him and his past comments are disturbing. These concerns go beyond his ties to Russia, which in fact, should not even be the primary focus of his confirmation hearings. The real concern cuts to the core of what conservatives are looking for in any department head, especially the State Department.
 
Trump should have appointed a secretary of State who regards the current State Department with as much disdain as Scott Pruitt regards the EPA. The problem we have at the State Department is not a management crisis. We have a moral and intellectual problem with the State Department that has persisted for decades. It stems from a deep-rooted culture of moral relativism and an “America-last” mindset. As such, we needed a man with a strong ideological rudder who understands the issues, is on the right side of them, and willing to bust up the entire State Department structure and the global foreign policy apparatus.
 
Both sides of this debate are too consumed with Russia — pro and con. Some of the new pro-Russia “conservatives” are praising Tillerson just because he’s close to Putin. Opponents, such as Lindsey Graham and John McCain, are voicing concerns solely because of his ties to Russia. However, there are many other foreign policy issues that are important.
 
For example, is a man with his background really the type of person to oppose refugees, a Palestinian State, cooperation with Saudi Arabia, and the Muslim Brotherhood? Where does he stand on political Islam? Where does he stand on the Iran deal and reinstating sanctions? Does he support backing “Syrian rebels” in the Syrian civil war, helping Iran in Iraq, or our current involvement in Libya? What would he do about the 15-year disaster in Afghanistan?
 
To be fair, these are all questions that must be answered by any nominee, but traditionally we’ve had some sense of direction from the nominee before the Senate confirmation hearings, which don’t take place until the administration is already up and running.
 
And although we know nothing about where Tillerson stands on these issues, he is absolutely not the type of person who would fight the inveterate players and insufferable mentality within the system that stands opposed to America’s interests. That is why people like James Baker, Condi Rice, Bob Corker, and Robert Gates — the embodiment of the problem with foreign policy — are enthusiastically supporting him.
In that respect, nominees for secretary of State are much like Supreme Court picks. Given the one-directional gravitational pull and inertia towards liberalism within the legal profession, unless someone has absolutely demonstrated a record as a solid originalist willing to buck the system, he will wind up being a David Souter. There is no middle ground. Likewise, with foreign policy, if someone has not demonstrably opposed the Baker/Condi views on open borders, Palestinians, and political Islam, he will be part of the problem.
 
The most important quality in politics is a strong and fierce ideological conviction to fight the moral relativism in global affairs. Other qualities are important but useless if someone is lacking that ideological rudder to row upstream in this environment. Even someone who is inherently neutral on these issues will wind up downstream in the cesspool of the global foreign policy establishment, much less someone with the connections, mindset, and “pragmatism” of a major transnational CEO.
 
Tillerson’s past comments in support of Common Core, a carbon tax,