« Yes, Let's Put Politics Before National Security | destor23's Blog | Ten Things Barack Obama Must Do Now! »
Affirmative Action for Republicans?
It's been suggested a few times already that Barack Obama should hand over some, or at least one, cabinet posts over to Republicans. Retaining Robert Gates as Secretary of Defense is one idea and it's the most, er, defensible since there's a war on and there's something to be said for not changing everything at once when we have troops deployed. Also, Bill Clinton set this precedent by appointing Republican William Cohen to the post and Cohen went on to reasonable successes in Kosovo. If Gates isn't retained, I've seen Chuck Hagel's name floated as a possibility. This would basically duplicate Clinton's move with Cohen.
Dean Baker suggested that Republican Sheila Bair take over the Treasury. She is Bush's appointed head of the FDIC. Jason Everett Miller, a frequent poster at TPM, has praised these ideas because the people being floated for the jobs are undeniably competent and he sees this as a way of building unity across parties. I don't want to present a week version of Jason's argument here: he is for competence above all but also believes that Obama needs to make some unifying, bipartisan moves.
As you can tell by the headline to my post, I hate this idea, even though the names floated are reasonably competent for the jobs they might do. In my experience, the Republican party does not graciously accept attempts at unity. Bill Clinton gave some cabinet appointment to Republicans and the Republicans still tried to destroy his presidency. Having people like Cohen and David Gergen on the Clinton team did not create a climate of bipartisan cooperation -- Republicans engaged in the "politics of personal destruction" in spite of Clinton's efforts.
Further, George W. Bush squeaked into the White House twice and yet claimed such a mandate that he virtually shut the Democrats out of the national discussion until he was forced to pretend to listen to them in 2006. Obama's victory was far more decisive. So why are we talking about making gestures towards unity that, if the experiences of the Clinton administration is to be our guide, won't work anyway? The people have elected a Democratic government in the White House and both legislative chambers. So let's have a Democratic government.
One might object that this is just the old spoils system at work and that these jobs should go to the most qualified candidates, regardless of party. But I see holding a few cabinet posts open for Republicans is akin to the very kind of affirmative action that Republicans hate. There is no cabinet position open where you can't find a Democrat who is most qualified to do the job. Are we really to believe that Robert Gates is more qualified to be Secretary of Defense than any Democrat in the country who would accept the position? I'd at least need to be convinced of that, and I'm not.
I understand that people have strong feelings about names being floated for various Obama posts. So do I. Maybe, in some cases, Obama is looking at the wrong Democrat. Josh Marshall, Dean Baker and Jim Sleeper all think Larry Summers isn't the right Democrat. Fine, I think I agree. But that doesn't mean that a Republican is the answer.
Can we find the right Democrats, or at least demonstrate that they don't exist. I really want Obama's administration to start some new job programs, but should we really be focusing on employing Republicans first?
Dean Baker suggested that Republican Sheila Bair take over the Treasury. She is Bush's appointed head of the FDIC. Jason Everett Miller, a frequent poster at TPM, has praised these ideas because the people being floated for the jobs are undeniably competent and he sees this as a way of building unity across parties. I don't want to present a week version of Jason's argument here: he is for competence above all but also believes that Obama needs to make some unifying, bipartisan moves.
As you can tell by the headline to my post, I hate this idea, even though the names floated are reasonably competent for the jobs they might do. In my experience, the Republican party does not graciously accept attempts at unity. Bill Clinton gave some cabinet appointment to Republicans and the Republicans still tried to destroy his presidency. Having people like Cohen and David Gergen on the Clinton team did not create a climate of bipartisan cooperation -- Republicans engaged in the "politics of personal destruction" in spite of Clinton's efforts.
Further, George W. Bush squeaked into the White House twice and yet claimed such a mandate that he virtually shut the Democrats out of the national discussion until he was forced to pretend to listen to them in 2006. Obama's victory was far more decisive. So why are we talking about making gestures towards unity that, if the experiences of the Clinton administration is to be our guide, won't work anyway? The people have elected a Democratic government in the White House and both legislative chambers. So let's have a Democratic government.
One might object that this is just the old spoils system at work and that these jobs should go to the most qualified candidates, regardless of party. But I see holding a few cabinet posts open for Republicans is akin to the very kind of affirmative action that Republicans hate. There is no cabinet position open where you can't find a Democrat who is most qualified to do the job. Are we really to believe that Robert Gates is more qualified to be Secretary of Defense than any Democrat in the country who would accept the position? I'd at least need to be convinced of that, and I'm not.
I understand that people have strong feelings about names being floated for various Obama posts. So do I. Maybe, in some cases, Obama is looking at the wrong Democrat. Josh Marshall, Dean Baker and Jim Sleeper all think Larry Summers isn't the right Democrat. Fine, I think I agree. But that doesn't mean that a Republican is the answer.
Can we find the right Democrats, or at least demonstrate that they don't exist. I really want Obama's administration to start some new job programs, but should we really be focusing on employing Republicans first?
Advertisement
Thanks for this Destor. I agree that any sane view of 'competence' or even 'change' (much less 'bottom-up change') should lead us to look a little wider than existing Republican personnel. Natch, they're going to be better known & more experienced (errr, having been in power for 20 of 28 years), and of COURSE they'll be able to line up all these impressive voices from within the bureaucracy - they're still RUNNING it. But if these are our only grounds, then why not just choose the most competent, experienced Republican bureaucrats & leaders and be done with it, eh?
Beyond this, I really do think there's a moral argument here. I'm happy to see peace, love, forgiveness & harmony... but right now I'm hearing the clunk clunk clunk of Democrats dropping everything they've been saying for 7 years. You know, the war was illegal, the Constitution was shredded, they tortured & wiretapped, they drowned cities & bombed the innocent. Gates (and others) signed on, swore oaths, participated, stayed quite, didn't report the law-breaking, etc. And for Gates, not just recently, he played nasty during Iran-Contra. I'll cut short my rant here, as I just made it over at Fly's post.
I don't mind hiring Republicans, don't get me wrong. But let's not whitewash their Cabinet members quite yet.... Cheers dude, and thanks for what amounts to sticking your head over the parapet, just a week after the election.
November 12, 2008 1:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
I posted my defense of Gates elsewhere on the site; I won't recapitulate it here. But I rubbed my eyes in disbelief as I read that since Bush shut Democrats out of government for six years, we should do the same. Are you actually advancing the personnel practices of the Bush administration as a model for emulation? Do we really want to privilege loyalty over competence, partisanship over experience, after what that's brought us?
I would far rather examine the records of candidates for these posts. I don't think Bair belong at Treasury, but I think she's done an outstanding job at FDIC. She's the sole federal official to have crafted an effective response to the mortgage crisis (viz, IndyMac mortgage restructuring) and she's done it over the protests of the Bush Administration, because it was the right thing to do. Yesterday, when the administration rounded up its economic team to introduce its latest pathetically inadequate attempt to address the crisis, Bair refused to attend, and instead released a statement criticizing the plan. The policies she's advocated are in accord with the Democratic consensus, and sharply at odds with government policy. And yet, simply because she was a Bush appointee, you would disqualify her from office. Why does that make sense?
The essential point, from where I sit, is that bipartisanship ought not be pursued mindlessly. It's a means to an end, a tool to produce effective governance. And sometimes, it's a byproduct of doing the right thing. To reject applicants solely because of their partisan affiliation makes no more sense to me than appointing them for the same reason.
November 12, 2008 3:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have to agree with FlyOnTheWall and for much the same reasons.
I was afraid that the democratic ascension would continue the same see-saw transitions that have hamstrung us in the past. I had hoped (and still believe) that an Obama administration would avoid the worst of it. So far, he seems to be delivering on his end of the bargain even as the democratic faithful pull in the opposite direction.
I am not advocating any specific name or number of republicans to fill cabinet roles. If any at get a role at all is immaterial to my point. I don't think they should automatically disqualify for being republcians. I know nothing about Blair, simply commenting that a female republican who is honest and capable would be a good choice. Don't like her? Would republican Paul O'Neil be disqualified as well? He bucked the Bush administration to point of being fired.
I advocate common sense and competence at all costs, even if it means some republicans end up in leadership roles. I think that continuing the left-right pendulum swing will ensure our very challenging problems will not be solved. 52% is certainly enough of a mandate to take this country in a progressive direction based on his campaign platform, but it isn't enough to change our entire country alone in the amount of time we have remaining.
Barack's actions so far seem to indicate he understands our need to pull together better than some of his supporters.
November 12, 2008 3:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
In the past, Obama has cited Doris Kearns Goodwin's Lincoln biography, Team of Rivals as a source of inspiration.
He's said that he's particularly intrigued by the notion that Lincoln assembled all of the Republicans who had run against him to be in his war Cabinet. Obama told Time magazine's Joe Klein: "The lesson is to not let your ego or grudges get in the way of hiring absolutely the best people. I don't think the American people are fundamentally ideological. They're pragmatic. And so I have an interest in casting a wide net, seeking out people with a wide range of expertise, including Republicans."
Long after the campaign had decided against picking Hillary as a running mate (because with Hillary, you get Bill), Obama kept asking, "Are we sure?"
I'm not sure Obama's way would be my way (especially in the case of Lieberman), but Obama has already shown that he's not particularly inclined to follow the path of least resistance. I suspect he'll do just fine no matter who he picks.
November 12, 2008 5:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sometimes it's not easy to tell the difference between the olive branch and the fig leaf.
I have very mixed feelings about this issue, and tend to lean with Destor. Things to get off the table:
1. We shouldn't be mean about cabinet postings just because the Republicans were.
2. We should pay attention to competency.
3. We need to create unity between the parties.
Okay, that's done. Now here's why Democrats should think very carefully before suggesting Republicans for cabinet posts.
The entire social contract is out of whack, and it's out of whack largely because of the way that Republicans ran the government while in power (and possibly partly because of the way some Democrats ran the government in the years before.) In any case, we're at a watershed moment in which it's clear that a great many old ideas have been tried--and died.
It's becoming increasingly clear that almost everything the Republicans did, ideologically and executionally, was wrong. We are on the verge of declaring the majority of their ideas, policies and programs to have damaged the nation. The folks advising the Bush/Cheney administration should have/may have understood this--but if they did, it's odd that they didn't speak up before the system came crashing down.
And yet we are talking about leaving some of them in as department heads so it won't LOOK bad? To create an appearance of unity? I know sometimes it's important to "fake it 'til you make it" but I don't want to cheapen the Democratic mandate by acting as if change that Democratic voters can believe in--can be achieved just as well by Republicans. I don't think that's why so many people worked for Democratic candidates, or why so many people came to the polls.
If there is to be unity between the parties, it needs to be created by a careful conversation between Republicans and Democrats about what our shared goals are, how we Democrats can execute on them, and what, if anything, of the Republican structure and function of the last eight years can or should be saved. I hope I'm making this clear--if we want unity, we need to create it honestly, by figuring out what most Americans want and how to get it for them, not via tricky appointment practices that are supposed to get Republicans to like us. It's cheap, and it won't work anyway.
If Obama wants to leave a few people in there because he thinks they're competent or to create a smooth transition, whatever. But let's not pretend it's going to be a feel-good thing. It makes us look either like sellouts or fools.
November 12, 2008 5:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, speaking of competency, Sarah Palin just told Wolfe Blitzer that she would be available to help out our new president in the area of energy. Right after that she said it still bothers her that he hung out with Bill Ayers, who is a domestic terrorist.
Great interview technique, Sarah! Although I don't think Michelle Obama plans to be a co-president, methinks she just might veto that appointment!
November 12, 2008 6:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, I saw that too. Did you get the impression she was being a shithead, or do you think she's just ignorant? It was hard for me to tell.
November 12, 2008 6:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think that in Palin's case its a doggone "two-fer".
November 13, 2008 3:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think she is just a clueless person with delusions of grandeur. She is ignorant of any worldly knowledge, and she is used to using her sexuality and her ability to lie without "blinking" to get ahead. The right-wing love that shit because they sing to it every Sunday morning; they see it as authenticity.
When all you've ever tasted in your coffee is powdered "cream" it is your 'norm' so that if you drink coffee with actual cream in it you make a face. The white powdered chemical is familiar, though fake, but if that's what you're used to, you prefer it, and feel suspicion about the real thing.
November 13, 2008 12:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, shesh, Erica, we wouldn't want to LOOK like we're going CHANGE anything would we? How radical!
November 12, 2008 6:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Would that be "change that seems like it isn't gonna happen but then does just when you're least expecting it?" :^)
November 12, 2008 6:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey all, really great comments and thanks for them. I do wonder what you think about my point about Clinton, though. He did make some bipartisan appointments and really got nothing in terms of unity, for them.
November 12, 2008 7:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't know if it's possible to draw any conclusions from that experience. I'm not saying you can't draw any conclusions either, but Obama and Clinton are two very different people, and these are very different times. I've trusted Obama's good judgment so far, and it's worked out pretty well. I think I'm just going to continue to trust him unless and until he gives me a reason to worry.
November 12, 2008 7:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think that making cross-partisan appointments is a terribly effective means of creating unity. So if that's the goal, it's not worth doing.
Clinton's appointment of Cohen was purely pragmatic, and it was made from a position of weakness. By 1996, Republicans controlled both houses of congress, and enjoyed a 55-seat majority in the Senate. Clinton hoped that by appointing the highly-respected retiring Republican Senator from Maine, he could buy support from his former colleagues on the Hill. That placed Cohen in a position of some independence; Clinton needed his support to advance his agenda, and Cohen used that fact to his advantage. It's possible that it was still a wise choice, since Clinton faced one of the most polarized and hostile congresses ever convened. But at best, it was a concession to reality. Clinton was giving up a measure of control over defense policy, because he was stymied by a hostile congress.
Contrast that with the present circumstances. Democrats control both houses of congress. Obama rode to office on the strength of a striking repudiation of the past eight years. For the moment, at least, he holds all the cards. Gates stays, or leaves, at the President's pleasure - he has no leverage. Obama can pass virtually any nominee through the confirmation process. So why on earth is he thinking of keeping Gates?
Well, the symbolism is important. I'll acknowledge that. And there is, as Ackerman argues, some political utility in using Gates to sell the changes. And, as Josh points out, it cements the tacit alliance with the foreign-policy realists. But at the end of the day, I think it's very simple. Gates is the best man for the job. And with Obama governing from a position of strength, he'll be a deputy and not an independent agent.
November 12, 2008 8:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
I can't believe you guys are wasting all this angst on this when there's not a whit of actual evidence from the campaign, as opposed to off the record citations from people who don't even purport to be inside the transition team, to support it.
And Christamighty, even after all that's happened, all the predictions of doom and gloom that the guy has overcome with effortless grace, all the ridiculous expectations that he's met and surpassed, all the judgments he's made that were questioned at the time that have proven superior to those of the MSM and the cable bloviators and the blog commenters--after all that, can we not even give the guy the benefit of the fucking doubt on whatever his actual cabinet picks turn out to be to not start second guessing him before he's even started?
November 12, 2008 10:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey NC-- I should be clear that I'm not really accusing Obama of doing this. I'm aiming this at some very smart commenters here, from both the realm of the featured and from the realm of regular commenters, who are advocating something I disagree with. I guess this is a discussion we're having with each other, if that makes sense.
November 12, 2008 11:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
"I guess this is a discussion we're having with each other, if that makes sense."
It does make sense.
Let's face it, folks--we're debating about who Obama should appoint to his cabinet, and it's not like he's personally sitting there online waiting for our next piece of advice. At least, I hope to God he isn't.
But more generally, this is a conversation about how we ought to deal with Republicans as we make the transition to power. (Even if it's just power over the water cooler talk.) Do we reach out, do we make nice, do we try to include them in our fun new project or do we just ignore them and get on with it?
So "If I were Obama, I would...." is really an attempt to come to terms with how we're all going to deal with the other (roughly) half of the country.
November 13, 2008 1:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
That's fair.
But while I'm being all fair, I'd note that the Clintons hired Gergen to get their messaging, which was suffering from classic frenetic Clintonian chaos, under control and his approval numbers up, not because they thought it would make Congressional Republicans like them. Gergen is as capable of being a horse's ass as anyone in Mediaville, but he did a damn good job for Bill at the time. Bill weathered the impeachment crisis in no small part because by the time it came, his approval numbers were in the sixties.
November 13, 2008 8:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'd like to point out something to those who believe that Republicans would be a bad choice for an Obama cabinet. Your view seems to be that Repubs are the cause of every evil and devisive failing of government over the past couple of decades. This is not quite true. The real cause of political division was the pseudo-con ideologues who wormed their way into positions of power. It was the strong-arm tactics of the shrub administration that kept moderate party members in line. I'm pretty sure that there won't be any ideologues from either the right OR the left side of the political spectrum in this new cabinet. Finally. An effective administration!
November 12, 2008 11:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, this illustrates my problem with this whole way of thinking...
Buck...
What on Earth is wrong with leftist ideologues? They have the benefit of good thinking. What's the drawback?
November 13, 2008 12:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
By pseudo-con I assume you mean ideologues who were not true conservatives?
Just want to get the context right.
November 13, 2008 1:18 AM | Reply | Permalink