So far I haven't seen a strong explanation about why he wouldn't be. There is much to hate about Trump—I in particular worry about the way he raises the risks of global nuclear war: <a href="https://jakeseliger.com/2016/11/28/trump-fears-and-the-nuclear-apocalypse" rel="nofollow">https://jakeseliger.com/2016/11/28/trump-fears-and-the-nucle...</a> —but it seems unwise to automatically oppose anyone he proposes for his Cabinet.<p>It is also not impossible that he will appoint a good FDA commissioner: <a href="http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2017/01/will-trump-appoint-great-fda-commissioner.html" rel="nofollow">http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2017/01/wil...</a>.<p>One should reserve opprobrium for where it is deserved and not fire it off generically, especially based on innuendo. Again, that is not to approve (<a href="https://jakeseliger.com/2016/10/10/vote-for-clinton-or-johnson-for-president/" rel="nofollow">https://jakeseliger.com/2016/10/10/vote-for-clinton-or-johns...</a>), but it should contextualize the discussion. As far as I can tell, Tillerson <i>could</i> be an excellent Secretary of State. He <i>could</i> also be a terrible one.