Treasury Secretary Successfully Defends America Against A Restaurant Joke

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent ate lunch at the Cheesecake Factory on October 26. Ordinarily, this would be a matter for Scott Bessent, his server and perhaps whoever had to help him choose from the menu. Cabinet secretaries are allowed to eat. Restaurants are allowed to serve them. So far, the republic is holding.

But this particular lunch followed Barack Obama's joke about the restaurant during a campaign appearance. Bessent praised his meal and suggested that the Martha's Vineyard crowd try it. Trump also weighed in, describing the joke as evidence that Obama had been a bad president.

The Treasury secretary ate a rebuttal.

Not issued one. Not delivered one from a lectern. Sat down and worked his way through one with silverware.

This is an extraordinarily literal way to consume the news cycle. Somewhere in the sprawling machinery of American government, we have arrived at a dispute whose supporting documentation can be boxed up to go.

To be clear, there is nothing wrong with the Cheesecake Factory. There is nothing wrong with enjoying lunch there. Nobody needs a graduate degree in small plates to deserve affordable groceries. The restaurant did not appoint the Treasury secretary and is not responsible for what he decides to communicate between bites.

The issue is that a man with a substantial role in the nation's economic affairs found time to join a restaurant-themed status fight with a former president.

What was the objective? WHO WAS WAITING FOR THIS? Was there a family at the kitchen table saying, yes, the bills are difficult, but before we discuss any of that, we need the administration's position on whether Barack Obama has unfairly maligned a chain restaurant?

No. That family was probably discussing dinner. The edible kind. Not dinner as an intervention in the national class discourse.

Then Obama responded at an October 28 rally in Georgia by explaining that he'd spent years taking his daughters to the Cheesecake Factory. So now we have the former president establishing his customer history, the Treasury secretary establishing his lunch credentials, and the sitting president evaluating a predecessor through restaurant criticism.

THIS IS NOT A CABINET. IT'S A YELP THREAD WITH A NUCLEAR ARSENAL.

And everybody involved can get another round of coverage out of it. The insult. The response. The response to the response. The explanatory background on the response. Somewhere, an actual policy issue is sitting under a heat lamp, drying out.

Obama argues that the administration would rather discuss this than his criticisms about corruption and living costs. That's his argument, not proof that anyone has conceded those allegations. Refusing to answer a charge doesn't establish it. Answering the restaurant joke doesn't refute it, either. It establishes that you answered the restaurant joke.

A remarkable achievement. Put it in the briefing book under Successfully Located the Least Important Part.

I'm tired. Not of people eating cheesecake. Eat the cheesecake. Get another slice. There are very few reliable pleasures available, and I'm not asking anybody to surrender one because a politician has wandered into the dining room wearing an argument.

I'm tired of the performance of solidarity that consists of being photographed near a menu.

BEING ABLE TO ORDER THE SAME LUNCH IS NOT THE SAME AS HAVING THE SAME PROBLEMS.

A cabinet official can enjoy a popular restaurant and still owe people serious answers about the economy. A former president can enjoy that restaurant and still make a joke. Neither proposition requires a multi-day contest to determine which powerful man possesses the most authentic relationship with a booth.

The administration doesn't need to defend America's right to order dessert. That front appears secure.

Please get back to the part where people can afford the bill.