The Nature of Change
Americans have lost faith in the competence of their government. That doesn't sound like news. It's been twenty-eight years since the conservative revolution brought Reagan to Washington, where he declared that "government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem." It's been twelve years since a Democratic president ratified that idea, announcing that "the era of big government is over." But those declarations of government's demise turn out to have been slightly premature. Government had not, in fact, reached its nadir. Instead, government continued to grow over the intervening decades, even as public confidence in government continued to erode.
In retrospect, it seems clear that neither the biting conservative critique of government overreach and ineptitude, nor the New Democratic embrace of those ideas, did nearly as much to undermine public confidence in government as the manifest incompetence of the Bush administration. Americans no longer trust their government because for eight years the government has not deserved their trust. There's ample data to bolster that contention. In May, Pew found that just 37% trust the federal government, and that those opinions closely track the presidential approval rating. Americans' faith in institutions of all kinds, in fact, has declined sharply over the past decade, with faith in governmental institutions leading the way, and approaching or surpassing Nixonian lows.
If that snowballing crisis of confidence is the greatest obstacle facing Barack Obama as he enters office, it also represents his greatest opportunity. Between August and October, the percentage of Americans who believed that the government has the power to fix the economy plummeted from 68 to 56. On the other hand, since his election, roughly two-thirds of Americans have reported that they are confident in Obama's ability to be a good president. His favorability spiked upwards immediately after his election, and has remained high.
So Americans trust Obama, but not the government that he was elected to lead. They are distrustful of partisanship, skeptical of bureaucracy, and suspicious of expertise. They agree that the country has rarely faced a more dire crisis, and that government seems unable to resolve it.
In retrospect, it seems clear that neither the biting conservative critique of government overreach and ineptitude, nor the New Democratic embrace of those ideas, did nearly as much to undermine public confidence in government as the manifest incompetence of the Bush administration. Americans no longer trust their government because for eight years the government has not deserved their trust. There's ample data to bolster that contention. In May, Pew found that just 37% trust the federal government, and that those opinions closely track the presidential approval rating. Americans' faith in institutions of all kinds, in fact, has declined sharply over the past decade, with faith in governmental institutions leading the way, and approaching or surpassing Nixonian lows.
If that snowballing crisis of confidence is the greatest obstacle facing Barack Obama as he enters office, it also represents his greatest opportunity. Between August and October, the percentage of Americans who believed that the government has the power to fix the economy plummeted from 68 to 56. On the other hand, since his election, roughly two-thirds of Americans have reported that they are confident in Obama's ability to be a good president. His favorability spiked upwards immediately after his election, and has remained high.
So Americans trust Obama, but not the government that he was elected to lead. They are distrustful of partisanship, skeptical of bureaucracy, and suspicious of expertise. They agree that the country has rarely faced a more dire crisis, and that government seems unable to resolve it.
There is only one way for Obama to square this circle: he must make competence the hallmark of his administration. In fact, his rhetoric has long pointed toward this approach. Whether talking about working in a "tradition and in a spirit of bipartisan cooperation to solve the country's problems" or vowing to "reform a broken economy and advance opportunity," when praising the perfectability of the union no less than when decrying the "broken politics in Washington," Obama has long argued for substantive change in both the goals and the methods of governance. He has made it perfectly clear, for all who cared to listen, that reforming the process of governance is no less important than reforming its products. Making government function more efficiently will restore the public support necessary to create new programs and reform old ones; passing new initiatives and revising existing programs will increase support for government, restoring confidence. The two aims are inseparable, and mutually-reinforcing.
Viewed in that light, many of his early decisions and appointments that have baffled or infuriated supporters look rather different. Obama is determined to demonstrate that competence is his prime criterion in selecting key officials. He has appointed allies and retainers to crucial posts, but also past opponents. He has drawn heavily upon experienced Washington figures, as well as those with extensive public service experience at the state level. He has reached out to figures who reformed dysfunctional agencies under Clinton, and to those who did the same under Bush. And, particularly in the realm of economic policy, he has turned to a circle of advisers who are both empirical and pragmatic, rejecting ideological purists.
Some commentators at TPM and elsewhere, have (with varying degrees of alarm or approval) taken this to mean that Obama's penchant for change is more focused on the processes of governance than on its goals. I think that's mistaken.
As I've observed before, Obama is a figure who challenges the limitations of our political vocabulary. We're going to have to coin some new phrases to describe his approach. His friend Cass Sunstein has taken to calling him a visionary minimalist. Minimalist in that he does not "believe that long-standing practices should be altered lightly or without a careful analysis that includes many voices." But visionary in his rejection of easy categories and bifurcations, and in his embrace of an ambitious agenda. "[Minimalists]," Sunstein notes, "like to proceed in a way that takes on board, rather than repudiating, the deepest commitments of their fellow citizens." That's limiting, in some ways. Obama doesn't want to tell his fellow citizens that what they think is wrong. Again, Sunstein: "He would prefer to say - what you think most deeply is compatible with the direction we can share." But, he adds, Obama believes in both the need for and the possibility of large-scale change. That's very different than most minimalists; it's what makes him a visionary.
This is what frustrates his critics on both the left and the right. Progressives would like to see him commit to a series of revolutionary changes, which would replace failed and failing programs and systems with entirely new ones. They want him take a more confrontational posture, and to rebut forcefully views with which he disagrees. Obama, however, is an evolutionary thinker and consensual leader. He generally prefers to adapt and reform, embracing successful elements while replacing those that have not worked, and building broad support for his programs. Conservatives, on the other hand, are panicked by the scale of the contemplated change, and scornful of the central role assigned to government. That's because the changes being contemplated by Obama are at least as sweeping in their scope and impact as any being mooted by his critics on the left, and they place the ability of government to effect meaningful change at their core.
The problem with judging the new administration by its early decisions is that, so far, most of those decisions have dealt with personnel. This is where Obama's minimalism is most pronounced. It should be entirely unsurprising that he has chosen to embrace a consensual approach to the operations of his administration, drawing on people with pre-existing relationships with key congressional allies and opponents, and choosing staffers who are tied to diverse and varied constituencies. That is the signature Obama approach to the process of governance, one that emphasizes competence above partisanship, consensus over conflict. But to adduce from these appointments that his policy agenda will be conventional or centrist is doubly mistaken. That agenda is likely to be less radical and to enjoy broader support than many expect, and at the same time, to propose sweeping change on a scale few now imagine.
It should be fun to watch.
If you've enjoyed this, please share it with other readers by clicking the 'recommend' link. You can find more analysis on my TPM 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
I really wish I could make a collection of articles like this that are being written right now, put them in a drawer and open the drawer and read them all next year at this time.
November 25, 2008 11:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's every blogger's dream to write something so pcompelling that a reader wants to print it out, put it away, and return to it a year later to read it again. Yet now that the dream is within my grasp, I feel so oddly unfulfilled.
November 25, 2008 11:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
So what's stopping you?
November 25, 2008 12:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Lost his drawers?
November 25, 2008 12:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Pretty much all browsers (even that crapulent one known as Internet Explorer) have the ability to create these things called "bookmarks" that allow you to do just that.
November 25, 2008 4:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
One of the things I like best about TPM is that it let's you practice venting in a sarcastic and totally inappropriate way, then through the magic of the delete key, practice tolerance...
November 25, 2008 6:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Fly, a more than worthy response--more eloquent and well-researched than my post.
The nub of our disagreement is the "vision thing." Sunstein and many others seem to take for granted that Obama is a visionary, perhaps because of his "soaring rhetoric," but no one seems to be able to say what exactly his vision is. Bruce's response to my post is telling:
I do share the sense that Obama wants to take us somewhere, but it's not clear where. He surely hopes to restore our faith in government and find shared purpose, but that isn't the revolutionary policy vision that progressives are looking for. He wants Americans to have affordable health care and good education, to make sure that the middle class are strong and that the poor have support, but these goals don't differ from those of previous Democratic administrations or those of his primary rivals.
So what, dear flyontnewall, do you regard as Obama's vision? And if it includes substantial policy changes, as you suggest, I challenge you to answer the riddle that I set out at the beginning of my post: Are substantial policy changes realistically achievable with a minimalist approach? Are experienced insiders likely to produce such changes, and can those changes survive a consensus process in the Legislature?
November 25, 2008 12:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Genghis:
I'm not arguing that his ultimate goals mark any kind of sharp departure. It's not the desire for, say, universal access to health care that marks a departure from the status quo; it would be the enactment of that policy, something previous administrations and congresses have notably failed to achieve. Actually ratifying these changes into law would constitute a major shift by any account. But even that doesn't really capture it.
I had an exchange with Greg Sargent on this subject, after I posted this entry, that helped me to clarify my thinking. The upshot was tripartite formulation: Obama supports pragmatic methods, progressive goals, and adaptive solutions. And it's the third element that I'd offer as answer to your questions.
Conservatives critics have listened to Obama tick off the same items that have comprised the progressive agenda for decades, and concluded that he's a run-of-the-mill liberal. Progressive worriers have watched as he's filled his administration with establishment figures, and concluded that he lacks either the inclination or the ability to implement that agenda. And they're all missing a crucial element of the picture.
Obama is at his most interesting, his most innovative, when he discusses the actual nitty-gritty policy solutions that he's considering to achieve his goals. These are what I'm terming his 'adaptive solutions.' So he supports cap-and-trade, which would have a potentially enormous impact on our systems of production. He wants to make healthcare universally available, but to do it by expanding the existing system and plugging its holes. He wants to expand access to education, but supports charter schools, and college funding in exchange for service. And he supports these ideas, not because they're more politically palatable versions of the changes he wishes he could advocate, but because he's a genuine believer in harnessing markets and compensating for their limitations. These are the solutions he actually prefers, not the ones for which he's settling.
We've been stuck, for too long, in a political world in which the significance of an idea is measured by its distance from the status quo, and in which its worth is seen as a function of its ideological purity. Thus incremental proposals tend to be dismissed as timid, and proposals that draw together the strongest elements of competing ideas tend to be reviled as weak-kneed compromises. In fact, incremental changes are often more sweeping than revolutionary changes, for better or worse. Simply adding prescription drug coverage to Medicare, for example, may cost more than $2 trillion over the next decade. It didn't involve an entirely new program, or a fundamental change in our approach. But it's going to have an enormous impact on every budgetary discussion for years to come. As it happens, the prescription drug benefit, in its present form, is terrible public policy. But I hope it illustrates the broader point, that incrementalism describes the style of change - evolutionary - and not its scale or the depth of its impact.
So Obama's policy proposals are exciting in two respects. The first is tactical. Obama's minimalism, his incrementalism, seems to represent a way to slice through Washington's Gordian Knot. It's enormously difficult to usher revolutionary programs through Congress, despite the desperate need for transformative change. Legislation that starts with existing programs, and then modifies and adapts them, stands a far better chance of passage and implementation. And, if done properly, the changes achieved this way can be at least as transformational. So for the first time in years, when I look at the Democratic agenda, I see a realistic path to its enactment, despite the likely opposition of entrenched interests.
The second element of the Obama agenda that I find exciting is its empiricism. One of the key advantages of an incremental approach is that it allows for experimentation. You don't have to figure out all the answers before you switch systems; you can tinker around the edges, and then expand the things that work. And any proposal that gets passed into law doesn't represent an end-state, a new orthodoxy. It's just a step along the way, a move toward a more perfect solution, recognizing that most problems are ultimately imperfectable. When two orthodoxies clash, the result is bitter partisanship - advocates on each side press onward in support of their system, since systemic approaches are mutually-exclusive. A minimalist approach aims instead to find point of overlap, issues on which enough people on both sides agree that they can cooperate to implement change.
That's why I'd make the case that Obama's approach is both more likely to pass, and more likely to succeed. But you're right. It's not revolutionary - it offers no radical points of disjuncture. But that's not the same as saying it's not innovative, substantive, and sweeping.
November 25, 2008 1:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well said. Outstanding analysis.I completely agree.
Once he gains consensus for the change, no one talks about the scale and seismic impact, they simply move forward as one unified force.
November 25, 2008 3:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Excellent answer. Even better than the original post. I think that my remaining disagreement at this point comes down to semantics. I don't see Obama's policy agenda as more sweeping than Clinton's, but if his incrementalism is effective, his accomplishments may be much more sweeping. (The cynic in me says Obama's approach will be moderately more effective but not sweepingly so.)
November 25, 2008 4:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is a really good post. It puts into words what many people just KNEW about Obama instinctively, but were unable to verbalize.
I'm not spending one minute agonizing over his cabinet selections. I trust him, trust that what he wants to accomplish will be in the best interest of the country and that he is putting into his cabinet the people that will best help him be successful.
I'm not normally quite so trusting. I have a habit of second guessing almost everything...For some reason this is different. My trust level is WAY up, and I find myself way less apt to fret. It is a very liberating feeling, one that is slowly letting me let go and get back to my life. I'm very excited about the changes to come, but because I trust the person who is leading the change, I don't seem to feel the need to monitor his every move.
November 25, 2008 7:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Always love your posts, fly -- but I'm inclined to dissent a little this time. I agree that Obama is more likely to get things done, but I'm really skeptical that it's because he has a better (more "adaptive") approach than past Democratic presidents.
I remember feeling a similar enthusiasm for Bill C. in '92. And I wasn't wrong: Bill was a smart, pragmatic guy, as well as a skilled politician.
Here's why I think Obama actually has a better shot than the Clintons did: it boils down to the circumstances.
* He has an easy act to follow. People are sick of the Republicans, so he's got a political wind at his back.
* Largely because of that, he has stronger legislative majorities -- especially in the Senate -- than the Clintons ever had. This is basic.
* And there's an economic crisis, which will justify precisely the kind of actions Democrats would want to take anyway -- infrastructure projects, healthcare reform, green-collar jobs, and so forth.
It's like the election. Obama is a great candidate, but it wasn't all about Obama. Circumstances matter -- and right now, the circumstances strongly favor us.
November 25, 2008 10:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
All true. But luck, as the immortal Branch Rickey observed, is the residue of design.
Clinton took office with 259 votes in the House, and 56 in the Senate. Obama looks poised to have roughly the same number in the House, and perhaps three more in the Senate. Both ran for office during economic downturns, after extended periods of GOP rule, although the differences in scale are notable.
But if Obama enjoys substantial congressional support, he actually did a great deal to create that situation. In 1992, Democrats lost nine seats in the House, and fought to a draw in the Senate. That wasn't entirely Bill's fault. Redistricting and the longterm realignment of the south played major roles. But it was also the case that Clinton's resources were more limited, and he focused on states that were deemed winnable. By outraising his rival, building a nationwide grassroots effort, and broadening the map, Obama accomplished two critical things: he swept more Democrats into office along with him, and in many districts, he outperformed the Democratic candidates.
So yes, he owes a great deal to luck. But he also did a great deal to manufacture his own luck.
November 26, 2008 8:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
I believe the luck being referred to is the end of one of the least popular administrations in history. That allows quite a bit of room to maneuver. In other words, there was a good chance that whomever won the Democratic primary would have won the presidency. And there is a feeling now that people do *not* want to stay the course. This is all quite different than 1992. Your sidestep, while factual, doesn't address the larger point.
November 26, 2008 1:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Agree with ☠enghis. This second post is superb.
I've been somewhat puzzled by the reaction to Obama's high profile picks from the left. If the people at the top don't know where the private bathrooms are in the halls of power, especially the Congressional halls of power, the most breathtakingly brilliant proposal is dead before it arrives.
You mentioned the 1993 Task Force on National Health Care Reforms. It is now a classic example of outsiders brilliantly blowing it. Brad DeLong was one of the economists that worked on analytic support for the proposal. Speaking of HRC and Ira Magaziner, the management consultant appointed by Bill Clinton as deputy, Delong said:
And that was just on the surface. It goes way downhill from there.
November 26, 2008 5:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
Great quote, and nicely put.
November 26, 2008 8:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
Fly. I suspect I have most of the same wishes for Obama's success as you. But the idea that the personnel & the dynamics you've described somehow show us that a new force is coming together... a new force which is both coherent as well as self-reinforcing? That strikes me as either "too early to say" or perhaps, wishful thinking.
e.g. you say, and I agree, that the decline in faith in the institutions is long-term, and that it took a further lurch down these past 8 years. Yet then the selection of people who didn't not only participated in, but in many cases led, we are supposed to gild with "competence." Geithner & Summers MAY show themselves to be crack reformers, world class thinkers who can go outside the box. But if Bush had appointed them, wouldn't we perhaps see their decisions as at least somewhat troubling? Isn't it the case that the "aura" the President-Elect casts is helping us to "cut some slack" on people we might not otherwise truly adore? As for the experienced politicians Obama is selecting, these same people played significant roles over the same period in which people CONTINUED to lose faith, such as the 90's.
I guess my main question would be, is it not at all reasonable to imagine that a political system which shrunk - in the interests it represented as well as the imagination of new ways to do things - over a period of decades, might be helped in its reform by drawing in voices from those who spent years outside it? From people who created, and represented, and worked, and thought from a base perhaps CLOSER to the real, wider, needs and interests of the American people, but who stood outside the system?
And if I chose to describe the real-world challenges America faces today, a number of which are unprecedented in recent decades, again, wouldn't I be reasonable to look to at least SOME voices who had worked the countryside, rather than remaining within the walls?
November 25, 2008 12:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
I couldn't agree more with your sentiment, quinn. In fact, I posted something similar to it yesterday.
November 25, 2008 1:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for your responses. The dangers you highlight - of insularity, institutional paralysis, and establishment thinking - are all too real.
Let me offer, if I may, a counter-example. The early years of the Clinton administration largely followed the model you detail. His cabinet famously "looked like America." He installed an Arkansas businessman as chief of staff. His administration was generously sprinkled with business, civic, and academic leaders with no prior government experience. And the result was a chaotic mess. Health care is the classic example; an innovative and largely-sound proposal, when judged on policy grounds, turned into a political nightmare. Hillary later reflected that she'd learned some valuable lessons about "the legislative process, the importance of bipartisan cooperation and the wisdom of taking small steps to get a big job done."
There's often little overlap, in my experience, between those best suited to offer advice, and those best suited to run large federal agencies. So, for example, Obama has installed a couple of truly brilliant academics as his senior economic advisers: Larry Summers and Christina Romer. (That they don't exactly agree on a number of crucial issues, I take as an encouraging sign.) It's been well-reported that he's been deeply influenced by behavioral economics and other cutting-edge research. But he chose Tim Geithner, a career public servant, to run Treasury.
The same seems to hold true across the board. In choosing staff for senior administrative posts, he's placed stress on the strength of their existing relationships with key players, and on the depth of their experience. That's led him to the roster of Washington insiders. But when you look at those who advised him during the campaign, or the small circle of senior advisers he's taking with him to the White House, you get a very different picture. David Axelrod and Valerie Jarrett. Samantha Power and Cass Sunstein. These are precisely the sort of outside-the-beltway figures you're calling for. Our current president seems to have cut himself off from the outside world, relying on an increasingly narrow circle of advisers for ideas and policies. So long as Obama continues to cast a wide net for his ideas, I'm less than alarmed that he's chosen conventional figures to implement them. (It's also worth noting that Obama has pledged to revitalize the civil service, and to recruit a new generation of Americans to government and public service of all kinds. If he succeeds, he'll re-seed the ranks of government workers with bright, creative minds in a way that we haven't seen since the Kennedy years.)
November 25, 2008 2:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Fly,
I'm wondering what your experience with Washington is?
I won't touch your strawman Clinton example. Your general argument is founded on the faulty premise that there is a special type of experience valuable in Washington -- based upon time in Washington.
The fact is just the opposite. I say this as someone who has repeatedly briefed members of Congress and their staff -- at their request -- for what it's really like in Washington. You see, the lawmakers rarely know how their laws influence others in a real sense. Sure, they know what the intent is supposed to be, but whether that intent translates or not is another story. So they make laws and generally move onto the next crisis. Do they care about what happens? Sure. But there are only 24 hours in a day and it's impossible to keep up in detail on everything. This is where they lose contact.
Ask, for example, some Washington insider how money from Homeland Security is spent. You will find that they have no idea how it is dispersed to the states and municipalities. This is where budget waste and crazy spending comes from. In other words, the Washington people you speak of don't understand the process of how Washington connects to the rest of the country.
To continue my example, the Dept of Homeland Security put on a week long course to explain their organization to experienced Congressional staffers. This was done in the past year. A full week. This was in response to there being such a disconnect in what was even going on in DHS. And even then, they ended the course where my stories began. In other words, the key aspects of how DHS interacts with the rest of the country wasn't even in the course. And this is just one portion of the federal government! Where is all this experience that you speak of?
There are literally thousands of senior academics and businesspeople and government employees that are asked to brief and advise the Washington DC folks. While these people don't have the insider experience to which you speak, they have the true citizen experience which is needed. In many respects, they know more about how the government works than those on the inside. They are the Master Sergeants who know the difference between the theory of the organization and the fact. But they are Master Sergeants perfectly capable of being commissioned officers if allowed to be.
Were we to listen to your suggestion of keeping appointments to that much smaller "experienced" group, we merely perpetuate the problem!
It is precisely for this reason that we desperately need citizen politicians rather than the careerists who work off of idealized models without actual in the trench experience. Again, this is why Obama is so attractive -- his knowledge gained from community organizing is more powerful as a guiding principle than the stories he heard over the course of the 18 month campaign trail. It's one thing to hear about something, it's another to live it.
The general financial blow-out we currently have is not to be laid on GWB's doorstep alone. It comes from decades of "experienced" politician, on both sides of the aisle (and yes, this includes the Clinton administration as well as the GOP ones). So much for experience.
I am not looking for the "best and brightest" -- that was a disaster in it's own right. On the other hand, there are huge pools of talent to be tapped for the Federal government and to go back to the same-old, same-old (e.g. the Clinton crowd that settled in Washington or it's virtual environs) doesn't provide much comfort. Your general strawman of either having experience or not is a fallacy. There are plenty of people already interacting at a very deep level with the system that aren't insiders - and have a decent amount of experience.
The people in the Washington crowds are nothing particularly special. Those who get elected to office are -- that's a special mix if charisma, luck, contacts, and money. But for that very few minority, appointees can be chosen via merit and expertise. And a type of experience that is hard gotten and more in lines with that of an average citizen.
We need more general participation, as a civic duty, from this class of people at the highest levels -- and then rotate them out for others.
November 25, 2008 3:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
I found it interesting that you declare "Fly" made a strawman's argument out of Clinton, but then use Homeland Security as a counter. Okay, I have no data, but do you think it possible that Homeland Security is the example of nepotism that Dubya was seeking with the AG's office, rewarding idealogues rather then qualified individuals? DHS is the shortest lived Department in the US Government, created by Dubya's people for Dubya's people, IMHO. If the OMB ever took a serious look at it, I think we would all be appalled at where the money goes.
November 25, 2008 4:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't see how you can even equate the two arguments. Fly was talking about specific people, I'm talking about situations involving government interactions.
And your history of DHS is a bit incorrect. First, DHS was created, in part, as a massive conglomeration of existing government organizations. It also has created immediate turf wars within the Federal government because it also replicated some functions already being performed elsewhere -- and better. Second, GWB opposed the creation of DHS -- because he wanted a less strong central government a la the Neocon creed. Congress was responsible for it's formation and crammed it down GWB's throat.
It's one of the few things that GWB got right, albeit for the wrong reasons.
November 25, 2008 4:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
clearthinker:
I regret that I don't have the time, tonight, to give your post the in-depth reply it deserves. I'll just say, for now, that there are roughly 7,000 posts in the Plum Book, and we've seen Obama fill a couple dozen. You're right; Washington has no monopoly on experience, and experience is no guarantee of wisdom or success. Obama will need to draw on those with operational experience at all levels of government, not just Beltway insiders. If come January, this administration is filled solely with insiders, I'll join you in voicing disappointment. But from the White House staff picks already announced, I suspect that won't be the case.
November 25, 2008 8:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'll be here tomorrow. ;-)
Seriously: As you and Genghis have correctly pointed out, filling posts sets the stage for the first couple of years. I, for one, would rather be proactive in getting some ideas into the system of how to fill those posts, rather than take my chances and be disappointed in January when it is too late.
Both yours and Genghis's posts brought up this issue quite nicely and gave many of us excuses to bring up additional points. I'm not one to really believe that blogs influence policy -- although www.change.gov is a worthwhile forum to air some issues -- but I do like getting some ideas into the aether. You never know what minds will pick things up.
Side note: you sound rather academic in your postings, both in style and in approach. I'm not looking to out anyone, but are you in a school of public policy? Or located at a university, but not formally involved in politics?
November 25, 2008 8:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Let me add this to what I wrote before. You cite the example of DHS; there is, perhaps, no more sprawling or balkanized bureaucracy in Washington. And, more than many federal agencies, it relies on its relationships with state and local governments and law enforcement. So it's the kind of post where experience outside of the Beltway proves particularly valuable - the first secretary was an assistant-DA turned governor, the second a prosecutor and judge. And the third? Well, that'd be Janet Napolitano, a border-state US Attorney, AG, and governor.
There are picks that Obama has made that have alarmed or disappointed me. When Brennan was rumored for CIA, I was disheartened. Dennis Blair enjoyed a rocky tenure at IDA, even before it was cut short by his conflicts of interest. Ellen Moran generally speaks in a different tone than Obama. But overall, I think his transition team has done a very good job of filling in its top-level posts. I hope that more of the second- and third-tier positions will be filled from a somewhat more diverse pool of applicants; if you're going to turn to insiders to manage these agencies, it becomes all that much more important to surround them with advisors and aides who can bring a fresh perspective. Let's watch closely as those appointments dribble out.
Side note: I cherish my anonymity, not the least because it allows my posts to be judged solely on the merits of the arguments they advance. So I'll politely decline to respond to your queries.
November 26, 2008 8:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
While these people don't have the insider experience to which you speak, they have the true citizen experience which is needed. In many respects, they know more about how the government works than those on the inside. They are the Master Sergeants who know the difference between the theory of the organization and the fact. But they are Master Sergeants perfectly capable of being commissioned officers if allowed to be.
You apparently are not aware that these are the reasons why the far right is so excited about Sarah Palin. They don't care about how smart someone is or their grasp of the situation. Competence is not a requirement. They want someone with the same experiences they have.
November 26, 2008 7:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
I hope Obama listens seriously to "outsiders" too or at least demands that his insider team argues outside notions cogently so as to air them clearly.
What outsiders might you have in mind?
November 25, 2008 2:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Fly. I'll tuck this at bottom, as it is far too long as a follow-up. Apologies in advance, but just wanted to throw this in the mix.
For the last 20 years of my working life, the terms incremental, adaptive, empirical & experimental have been music to my ears. I can 100% vouch that they can produce not just substantial gains, but ones which multiply into a transformation, of an entire sector. And yes, the public - engaged properly - can often participate, see the results, and have confidence restored. Those who believe 100% reversals, turning things on their head, to produce "progressive" gains, are, I believe, misguided.
An example, however. The Blair government (which, since Iraq has disappeared from our mental horizon) very much bought this approach. To see Blair manage his comments on Thatcher, Labour's approach to the Royal Family & the House of Lords - all were done in a manner I suspect you would appreciate. Yet, step by incremental step, enormous change resulted. Scotland, Wales & the cities getting their own government; Northern Ireland peace; a minimum wage; leadership on CO2; closer ties with Europe; rebuilt hospitals & schools; the New Deal to create jobs in the inner cities, funded by taxes on the privatized utilities. Beyond winning 3 majorities, the fact that something as basic as Child Poverty was lowered from 33% under Thatcher to less than 13%... this was real, measurable, change.
I see 2 things as different however. 1st, New Labour was heavily supplied from its think tanks, which had placed a premium on thinking outside the box. On scouring the world for innovations, testing these approaches, and working through how to implement them differently. The think tanks were almost entirely staffed by people under 25, drawn from around the world. And when Labour came in, their leading thinkers often moved directly into Blair's central office at Number 10, or became senior advisors to Ministers. After a number of years, some of them were elected, and are today amongst the leaders of what Labour will become - should Gordon Brown falter.
David Miliband - Brown's most likely successor - came out of IPPR, became Blair's Head of Policy at age 32, then the country's youngest ever Foreign Secretary at 41. Geoff Mulgan went directly from heading Demos to being Blair's Director of Strategy. The list is at least 15 people long, their role was enormous, they all worked along the lines you describe, they were young, many educated internationally... and none had 10 minutes experience within the Thatcher-Major Government.
My issue is that, to date, it is difficult to see these sorts of people at the top levels. I'm hoping they'll be named as advisors to the established names going into Cabinet. But at present, the warning flag is up. The question is - measured against the (real but limited) change Blair achieved, and who had an absolute Parliamentary majority, with very senior input from young outsiders - is it reasonable to expect more or less "change" from the Obama team, as it is presently constituted? I'm not saying we can't, but I do think this question is very much open.
2nd, the world is not as it was in 1992 or 1997. Clinton had to help boost an economy out of what is (comparatively) a shallow patch, and, in general, ease back the throttle of the Reaganite juggernaut. Blair's task was bigger, the hole had been dug for 18 years. Both accomplished a fair amount, both largely using non-dramatic, non-revolutionary tools. But I think it does us no good to mistake our times, or - at a minimum - not to take the words of the Reich's and Krugman's at face value. This is a dire situation we are in, and not at all like our previous recessions. Which is why when we survey the proposals being brought forward, what is most noticeable - tucked within the descriptions - is that these measures are being wheeled into place... to stabilize the ship. Extending unemployment benefits ... bailing out the financial sector... increasing payments to states & cities... all of this is not being expected to bring us forward, at best, to... where we were 12 months ago.
Personally, I love many of Obama's proposals - a mix that includes Charter Schools and 1 million plug-in hybrids; Cap & Trade and increased investment in broadband & a smart Grid. But the question he, and we, already face is, "Are these targets, tools, approaches & personnel in any way capable of surmounting the tasks history has thrown up before us?" To be blunt, the existing proposals are not - in any way, shape or form that I can decipher - an equivalent of a "New Deal" (though we may wish to pain that slogan on our actions.) So if our times require changes of that magnitude - and not those of 1992 or 1997 - then is our trajectory likely to take us over the top?
Again, thanks for your post, and apologies for my length here.
November 25, 2008 5:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't understand why people automatically conflate "new people" with "young people". The general question should never be framed "young and forward-thinking" vs. "old and experienced" (both of these descriptions are strawmen at best) although it often does get sorted out that way in people's minds.
November 25, 2008 6:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Point taken. It's just that a higher % of young people are likely to be "new" to high office than old people.
But agreed, "new" is better.
November 25, 2008 7:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
The general question should never be framed "young and forward-thinking" vs. "old and experienced" (both of these descriptions are strawmen at best)
Hmmm... Maybe it's something like those that conflate possible baby Boomers here at TPM with backward looking, lying anti-war protesters and girls that were once pretty but then age and miss their pretty girl perks.
Surely you remember what you wrote just a few days ago?
This is patronizing, mindless, uninformed, drivel.
To see it treated as anything else can lead to stress and sabbaticals.
November 26, 2008 8:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
quinn:
To your last question, I'd reply, "Of course not." Our understanding of the problem has changed since Obama unveiled his agenda on the campaign trail; I imagine that the nature of his proposals will evolve, as well.
Your New Labor analogy is intriguing. But I'd note Blair's co-optation of Gordon Brown looks a lot like Obama's appointment of Clinton. And there are new figures in this administration: Christy Romer hails from academia, and Melody Barnes from precisely the think-tank world you reference. Others have moved between governmental positions and think-tanks. I think Heather Higginbottom, Peter Orszag, Chris Lu, and Mona Sutphen, are extremely encouraging picks. And Susan Rice, of course,
Right now, we know the names of some of the most prominent cabinet officials. Those aren't the posts where you expect to see outsiders. As the deputy and assistant secretaries are named, the lower-profile cabinet posts filled in, I'd expect to see Obama reach outside of Washington. It's in these posts that he'll have the chance to groom the next generation (or, if clearthinker prefers, the next non-age-specific-group) of talent. And, a few years in, these newer faces will start to assume more prominent roles. That's how most of the current crop of insiders got to be that way. Larry Summers, it's worth remembering, was an academic star who had spent a couple of years at the World Bank before being chosen as an undersecretary. Eric Holder had worked for Justice and was sitting on the DC bench when he was tapped as the District's US Attorney. They worked their way up from those posts; I'm sure another crop will do the same.
November 25, 2008 8:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ask, and ye shall receive.
Obama is set to name Paul Volcker as the chair of the newly-created President's Economic Recovery Advisory Board at his daily press conference. That's more of the same; another respected graybeard named to a senior economic post to calm the markets. But who'll actually run the Board, while also sitting on the Council of Economic Advisors? Austan Goolsbee.
Orszag, Romer, Goolsbee. There's a pattern there, and it's not just Obama's openness to the insights of behavioral economics. We're seeing him fill the high-profile posts with respected establishment figures, but turn to innovative, thoughtful economists of an academic bent to staff the key insider posts.
November 26, 2008 8:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
Terrific! I think you have provided an excellent analysis of the proposals, rhetoric, strategies, and talents that Obama has applied in creating this hopeful "love-fest" that surrounds him, despite any results yet being produced.
I respectfully suggest, however, that there also seems to be another dynamic that you neglect to credit, namely the fact that with crisis comes opportunity. The transformative Presidents in our history arose from crises such as we face today. The successfully grand accomplishments of Lincoln and FDR, most particularly, were made possible primarily because of the situations they each confronted. The Civil War and the Great Depression forced upon the citizenry an intensely renewed faith in government to be a singular force for change that could protect its interests. In both cases, after all, how would these crises be resolved if not through the rather extreme involvement of government in confronting them?
Obama is presented with the same opportunity today. Individually, we are helpless to resolve the economic crisis we face, and we sense that an overwhelming involvement of government will be required to successfully right this ship.
We can be excused for never really finding credible the past promises made by Progressive candidates to secure such things as Universal Health Care, for example. It is simply too expensive; too "sweeping" in its scope. Yet we now see 100's of billions of dollars being made directly available to those in the financial sector who are arguably most responsible for our present difficulties. It is only natural for the citizenry to respond with a "Hey! Wait just a cotton picking minute!" reaction. They reason that if it is necessary to inject such a staggering amount of capital into the system, perhaps there are ways in which to do so that both address the immediate problems in the economy while also providing a co-benefit to the larger body politic.
An investment of the magnitude required to now achieve Universal Health Care suddenly seems plausible for its ability to stimulate the economy (e.g. frees up capital in the consumers pocketbooks) and to relieve the industrial sector (Big Three Automakers, etc.) from this massive overhead cost that so negatively affects their competitiveness.
There are numerous other government programs (i.e. support for a Renewable Energy Program; WPA-like programs to improve infrastructure; etc.) long promoted by Progressives that now seem likewise plausible in this time of need for rather drastic government intervention and expenditures.
Out of crisis arises opportunity, and Obama offers hope that he is just they type of leader who understands what will be required to leverage the necessary solutions to our primary problem in much the same way as our greatest Presidents have done before him.
November 25, 2008 8:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well said, both on the way the crisis presents us with the opportunity to do things that once seemed too large, as well as on the hope that Obama embodies.
Now if we could just see the outlines of, say, a Universal Health Care proposal, somewhere in the mist... and then just a small tendril of support, floating up from a certain chimney in Chicago... I think we'd all feel a lot calmer. ;-)
November 25, 2008 9:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Too funny, and your allusion to anxiously awaiting word from the College of Cardinals is apt (and dare I say poetic?)
As a grizzled old cynic, I am surprised to find myself investing such a great degree of hope in Obama despite the lack of detail about the specifics "somewhere in the mist."
Then again, I'm reminded of all the times I second-guessed strategies and actions taken by Obama during the long election campaign, only to subsequently learn that he had chosen an exquisitely appropriate tack that totally escaped my grasp of the matters at hand.
And so I've learned to invest faith in his judgement that surpasses even my own. I can only pray that I'm not disappointed, even as the cynic within warns that such a letdown is probably inevitable.
Oh, well! If he does go down in flames, I guess we'll all be drinking early, eh?
November 25, 2008 10:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
And if Lux has his way (see: below) hurling some bottles as well....
November 26, 2008 1:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
I lack the intellectual self-confidence to contribute to a thread with such a high level of knowledgeable comments.
In awe of all of you.
November 25, 2008 9:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh piffle. We were just subbing in, dude. Where the hell WERE you? Damned Fly's on our 25 yard line, and I'm knackered. So get in there and sack him, willya? How? I donno how! Insult his mother or something. Hit the Report Abuse button. Whatever.
Desperate times etc.
November 25, 2008 9:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Take on Fly and Genghis at the 25 yard line? Let me think......
I know, we'll cop Bill Veeck's strategy!
Its DISCO DEMOLITION NIGHT!
http://www.stevemandich.com/otherstuff/disco.htm
November 25, 2008 10:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dare you to run down the thread, tagging each of Fly's comments with a link to a disco video. (Two for each of Genghis'.)
50 cents.
November 25, 2008 10:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
And we were having such a substantive discussion!
I wonder if this report from Brookings on presidential transitions, which bolsters my broad points, might get the discussion back on track.
November 26, 2008 7:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sincere apologies FlyontheWall. I get a little rowdy late at night sometimes.. I stand by my first comment about the quality of the comments. I really don't have much substantive to contribute other than a snippet about Cass Sunstein, who wrote a book on the recent Supreme Court, and praised O'Connor for her judicial minimalism/incrementalism...he believes rightly that her approach to the law---i.e. deliberately avoiding reaching the large constitutional issues and deciding cases on narrow points, kept the Court as a whole from swinging further to the right than if the ideologues on the right had had their way.
There are critiques available to this approach; not the least of which it leaves the lower courts without much guidance on settling cases that come before them. But minimalism/incrementalism as a governing political as opposed to legal philosophy is not new and it is well-suited to the partisan deadlock we have in front of us. A "visionary minimalist", I would see as a very good description of Obama...I wrote a very early blog on the topic called "Obama, Irrational Enthusiasm & the Ascent of Principled Pragmatism"
where I argued that he was an idealist but given to using pragmatic means to achieve his ends. Witness FISA II and more recently, the choices in economic circle.
The problem confronting Obama and his team is not the return of a 1932 type scenario...it actually is closer to a 1938 one. The devices of the first 100 days of FDR's first term may not work in this environment and I believe that so far, Obama is acting with "all deliberate haste" in a very very intelligent manner. It is so gratifying to get intelligence back in the White House that doesn't feel it has to hide itself in some folksy persona.
November 26, 2008 10:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm going to go out on a limb, and hazard a guess that you didn't actually click through my link.
The judicial analogy is terrific, and particularly appropriate for a Constitutional Law scholar. The main post includes a link to a forum at the Kennedy Library in which Sunstein himself expands on the themes you outline.
November 26, 2008 10:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
You are right, I breezed right by them in my rush to make amends.
November 26, 2008 10:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
For those who post from a locus that has a subscription to JSTOR and SSRN the following page is a trove of Sunstein articles:
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=16333
Notice he has written on the main problems of judicial minimalism and I haven't the time now to go into the paper, but most of the structural defects (again, lower court guidance) are not, I think, directly translatable to the strictly political realm so Obama's strategy doesn't have any apparent defects in principle to me at least.
I am posting at length about him, because I think there is a fair chance he may get elevated to the high court someday.
See you all in a few days.
November 26, 2008 11:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
Now that would be a notable choice - imagine nominating a candidate for the Supreme Court who had actually made substantive theoretical contributions? It's a shame he's not a woman, though - he'll probably have to wait for a second opening. I'm putting my money on Elana Kagan for the first.
November 26, 2008 11:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
You mean like this?
www.youtube.com/watch?v=MpQfCcsqQ0E
Keep your fifty cents. I'm not gonna vandalize the thread! Nuh uh!
Where's Space Mtn? He's the man for the big jobs!
November 25, 2008 10:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Threadbreaking? Without me?! humpf
(struts off toward juicy looking fly on the wall)
November 26, 2008 8:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Competence" by itself has no value. Pragmatists like the Nazis were very competent. They weren't dummies. The Bush crime family is actually very competent in what it set out to do. Most of them are much richer than they were and were very powerful for themselves and their friends for years. They destroyed a whole country and made money at it. New Orleans is doing quite well for some.
Cass Sunstein, like Tom Friedman, Fareed Zakaria are middle brow thinkers. They come up with catchy titles and phrases like "Nudge" and "authoritarian libertarianism". As John Kenneth Galbraith said years ago ""The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness." Instead of changing their minds, says Galbraith, they go about proving that they are right.
Honestly, "winning isn't everything". What is all of this for? What is the excitement about having a competent economist if the goal is skewered towards the goal of elite rule? Sunstein is not a fan of the jury system. Sunstein, Summers,and others around Obama lean heavily in the Hamiltonian and not the Jefferson direction. They still believe they are masters of the universe even after all the mistakes. They do not believe in the wisdom of crowds. They believe in a few good men.
We used to have a crowd who believed in rule by a few good old white men sitting around smoking cigars and then hitting golf balls. Have we traded them in for just a younger version?
I'd trade them all in for Naomi Klein and Nomi Prins.
November 26, 2008 9:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't recognize Cass Sunstein in your brief dismissal of him. He is that rarest of scholars, both prolific in writings and deep of thought (at least to me) and an abiding friend of liberalism.
It can be also be argued that no scholar living understands the American judicial system better than he or the dangers facing it (again my opinion)
I have a book on my shelf that I haul down from time to time (I have it here now) The Second Bill of Rights: FDR's Unfinished Revolution & Why We Need It More than Ever by Sunstein. On page 135 is found this sentence:
"The existence of social and economic rights in a nation's constitution is correlated with the strength of left-wing elements in that nation's polity."
No one to my limited knowledge has put it so and
I think his heart is in the right place. I would love to see him on the Supreme Court. I think his destructive critique of the essential irrationality in punitive awards by state juries in tort cases was based on data that could be impeached so I separate from him there, but I think it is a matter of degree only and he can't be accused of wanting to toss out the jury baby with the irrational awards bath water.
November 26, 2008 10:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
Fly,
Several points:
a) Breezing by my example of the DHS is a misread of my statement. I could have easily talked in terms of DOD or EPA or the Coast Guard, or a host of other specific agencies with the same issue. I was merely picking one of many examples. My providing examples is not to showcase the detailed specifics, but to illustrate broader points with facts. As such, I would hope you reconsider your thoughts there.
b) In a similar light, I am not advocating creating a new generation of insiders as you imply. Perhaps I wasn't clear enough. I am advocating the notion of "term limits" to government service in general. Don't pounce on my use of the term here, I put it in quotes. But the general idea is to rotate people into -- and out of -- the government. Not to create a new elite. Again, that is where the disconnect problems arise.
c) I can appreciate your desire for anonymity, but when you write of your experience as a basis to form your position (and on this very thread), there is no context for me to understand what it's based on. It weakens the statement considerably.
My bottom line is quite simple: Obama ran a radical campaign -- and blew away all conventional wisdom. He used innovative techniques and thought way outside the box. He did not use the standard Democratic playbook, he surrounded himself with a new radical mix of players. He didn't take in people who were green, but he did take in people a bit outside the usual suspects. He won as a result. His choice of Gates is, perhaps, the most inspired of all. Gates will help sort out the troop draw down and then be replaced is my guess. I was hoping for more of the same when he assembled the equivalent of his campaign team for the White House.
November 26, 2008 12:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
My understanding of it is thus:
When you are brokering power, use power brokers.
I think that each system we have develops its own professional class that is not always easily transferred to new systems (industries). If you spend your time reducing the ability of a system to work well with a consistent set of professionals, you end up with a system that does not accomplish its intended goal efficiently.
Perhaps there is a better way to feed non-government system experience into the system without handicapping it?
November 26, 2008 11:58 PM | Reply | Permalink