In Transition
In the best traditions of the media, I'll follow up a substantive post with one focused almost entirely on process issues. (Thanks again to all who chimed in; that was a fantastic discussion.) The topic of the day - and likely of the week, and perhaps the next two months - is the presidential transition. So I thought I'd offer a few thoughts of my own:
- Eighteen months after Bill Clinton was sworn in as president, he appointed Leon Panetta as his new chief of staff. Panetta asked his predecessor if he had an organizational chart of the White House; McLarty reportedly replied, "I don't think I do." That's pretty much all you need to know about the Clinton transition. Among President Clinton's greatest strengths were his restless curiosity and creativity. But it took him a year and a half to figure out that he needed a chief of staff who could compensate for his weaknesses, not just supplement his strengths. And that's all I have to say about the selection of Rahm Emanuel.
- Obama has one structural advantage over the 1992 transition: a deep bench. He's drawing on veterans of an administration many Americans now remember with some nostalgia. The Clintonites, in contrast, weren't about to fill out their ranks with Carter aides. It also helps that Obama comes from Chicago, and not from Little Rock. All Presidents spend years assembling around themselves an entourage of hangers-on and retainers; these tend to be the people who do them both the most harm and the most good once they actually ascend to office. Obama has been fishing in a much larger pool for his talent, and it shows. Finally, the two four years that Obama spent in Washington may have been fewer than his rivals on the campaign trail, but they're the most for an incoming Democrat since Lyndon Johnson, and they'll help.
- There's been a surprising amount of hand-wringing over Obama's prospective choices for his financial team. I think it's misplaced. Obama finds himself in a peculiar bind - the economy of the world teeters on the edge of disaster, the markets scrutinize his every pronouncement and appointment for signs of his policies, and yet he won't be able to take any substantive action for another two months. His immediate imperative is to reassure the markets and ease the crisis of confidence. Only naming a trusted and experienced figure can accomplish that goal; Summers and Geithner both qualify. Further out, he'll have an easier time selling substantive changes if his emissary is trusted by his opponents. Who better to make the case for stimulus than a reformed deficit hawk? To push for more extensive regulation than an accomplished liberalizer?
- My favorite element of the transition website isn't its hokey address. And it's not the (oddly familiar) invitation to tell your story of this American Moment. (I suspect the prize will be a shout-out in the inaugural address.) No, it's the half-built section entitled America Serves, which promises to connect Americans with opportunities to aid their nation. The notion of national service - of mutual responsibility and collective sacrifice - was a crucial element of Obama's campaign trail rhetoric. We've seen similar initiatives for two decades, and know that they have seldom lived up to their billing. So the inclusion of America Serves on the transition page is doubly encouraging. It signals the centrality of the notion and the strength of Obama's commitment to the program. And, perhaps more importantly, it provides our first solid indication that the Obama Administration will utilize some of the same grassroots tools as the campaign to organize Americans to improve our nation.
If you've enjoyed this, please share it with other readers by clicking the 'recommend' link. You can find more analysis on my blog, or subscribe by clicking "Follow Me" on the right. As always, I welcome your comments and corrections, and thank you for your feedback.
Advertisement
Actually, Obama has been in Washington nearly 4 years now. He was elected Senator in 2004, and assumed office on January 4th, 2005.
Speaking of which, when's his replacement in the Senate going to be decided?
November 7, 2008 12:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
I heard that Jessie Jackson's son is in line for that job.
November 7, 2008 12:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
I stand corrected.
And it's an interesting question. Blagojevich plans to make a decision by January 1. A number of interesting names are attracting some buzz. One school of thought holds that the only black seat in the senate ought to stay that way - Jesse Jackson, Jr (who yesterday said he'd be "honored" and "humbled"), Danny Davis (who declared for the seat before Obama was even elected), Jesse White and Emil Jones are all jockeying for the seat. I'd have to give Jackson Jr the early edge - he's a force to be reckoned with, and Obama owes him.
But there's a second school of thought that points out that the seat will have to be defended in two years time. Midterm elections are generally uphill struggles for the president's party, and none of the black politicians being mentioned for the seat possess more than a fraction of Obama's cross-racial appeal. There's a whole state outside of Chicago. So Jan Schakowsky's name is also being prominently floated (she's of Polish and Jewish descent - top that in Illinois!).
The dark-horse candidate is Tammy Duckworth, Blagojevich's Veterans' aide, and favorite of the net-roots. It'd be a savvy choice in some ways. She's a figure who can make her case in the southern (and more rural) parts of the state. She's gained more experience than she possessed during her first, failed run for the House. And she's not a part of the (largely corrupt) Illinois establishment.
But my sense is still that it's Junior's seat to lose.
November 7, 2008 12:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Clearly you have too high an opinion of Gov Blagojevich, because you did not include his own name in that list. I do not want Blagojevich to appoint himself to the senate, but he surely sees that his own political future in IL is dim, so he has little to lose in appointing himself and thus earning a senator's pension for his two-year's service. The only upside I see to this is that Pat Quinn would almost certainly be a better governor than Blagojevich, but then that is not saying much.
November 7, 2008 2:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
you dont get a pension for 2 years service.
November 7, 2008 11:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
I honestly can't add anything to your post, Fly, except - EXCELLENT! Your words of wisdom are so helpful. And I've got to admit, it's far more fascinating talking about process and substance than just "clinging" to polls and hope.
I wake up in the morning now, much more rested, calmer, feeling a sense that's been lacking for so many years. The sense of being "held" by my govt, the sense that I'm not in this all alone, that if we get sick or lose a job, we won't be alone, that if we have more, we're going to share, that if are well, we can "serve." It's like a dysfuntional family found therapy and from the top down there will be healing. If we change the "climate" of our society, we can care about each other and take care of each other. And oh... what a difference.
November 7, 2008 12:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Larry Summers is "trusted"?
November 7, 2008 1:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not, to be sure, by progressives. And particularly not by the Faculty of Arts and Sciences. But he ran the Treasury Department for a year and a half without major incident - and, during his time in government, addressed the Asian financial crisis. He also spent time at the World Bank. There's no major economic policy maker, here or abroad, with whom he isn't personally acquainted.
I'm well aware that his impressive credentials and his extensive record are, for many, precisely the problem. But let me be blunt. What you or I think of Summers and his past policies is not terribly relevant; what matters most to the economy, at this critical juncture, is what the markets think. Markets hate surprises, and love predictability. Summers is a known quantity. They've seen him in office. Laura Tyson, for example, is a relative unknown. The Treasury pick is going to be known for some weeks, perhaps months, before he assumes office. That is, for an extended period, the pick will be judged solely on reputation, because he or she will be unable to take concrete action. It'd be a mistake to allow Summers to drive the administration's economic policy. But to give him (or someone like him) the job of implementing and selling it? That'd probably be a savvy move.
November 7, 2008 2:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Seems like everything you write here speaks to his experience, which I did not question. Rather, just the trustworthiness. That's all.
Larry Summers has a proven track record s/t only the most gullible would ever trust him more than some bare minimum.
November 8, 2008 3:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Illuminating as always, Fly.
November 7, 2008 2:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry for such a mundane comment...
I very much want to email your article to someone very concerned about the transition. However, I am unable to as an ad covers the email window...
upsetting.
November 7, 2008 4:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Send a link. Use the link at the top of the page.
November 7, 2008 7:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
lavren:
Nothing for which to apologize - that's actually entirely flattering. At the lower-right-side of the post are two small words: print and share. If you click on share, and then click on the tab that says "e-mail," you can send it fairly easily.
November 8, 2008 5:26 PM | Reply | Permalink