In Obama, particularly during the critical last six weeks of the campaign after Lehman Brothers collapsed, many Americans saw in him someone they felt they could trust to get the big things right, regardless of his age or experience. They knew they needed new management after eight years of cronyism and ineptitude. Too many things were going wrong and it was time to get someone in there who was willing to learn and think about solutions to problems. Obama talked about hope and change, but he knew that to get over the top (and crucially win independents) he had to demonstrate competence and command, which he did. He didn’t need to move to the center on policy because the political landscape was shifting in his direction. To win the center he needed to show he could do the job.
And that thinking continues to guide his decisions in building his administration. With the exception of Hillary Clinton (and maybe a bit around Rahm Emanuel), his picks for high office have largely lacked controversy or drama. Big personalities yes. But people who are widely seen as highly able and ready to do the job (and this of course includes Hillary), regardless of whether they were loyal or close to Mr. Obama. That represents a big change of philosophy from what we have seen recently – from both Bill Clinton (whose transition was a basket case) to W. And it is another sign of Mr. Obama’s innate prudence, maturity and confidence.
There will of course remain questions about whether Obama can corral the big beasts he has brought into his administration to stampede in the same direction. But, if there is an indication about how he might do that, it comes from the way he has presented his selections. And the important word to note is four letterered – T-E-A-M.
Obama has offered his nominees as part of teams to grapple with the big challenges of the economy and national security. It suggests he wants these people working closely together, across the bureaucracies they will administer, to join up policy thinking and implementation, because the complexities of today’s world demand it. So for instance, Bob Gates and Hillary Clinton will need to end turf wars between the Pentagon and Foggy Bottom over who leads nation-building efforts and create joined up teams of experts to address security, institutional and economic development issues in failed states. And in Obama’s White House, big players like retired Marine Commandant Jim Jones and former Treasury Secretary Larry Summers will be there to lasso the steers and provide some critical challenge to their colleagues in the departmental hinterlands.
I’d expect Obama to offer similar models around the environment – bringing together Energy, EPA, Interior and maybe Agriculture as well around a coordinated White House policy apparatus (maybe with a Climate czar serving as the environmental cowboy). Housing and Urban Development and Transportation could likewise be paired, with Obama’s proposed White House Office for Urban Policy bringing those machines into sink to address sustainability and the regional dynamic of economic policy.
Obama is an astute student of political history. His model for how to organize his government is the Reagan Administration – with a strong White House directing policy and competent and skilled managers delivering it. If there is anything I’d like to see so far that I haven’t yet, it is an indication of how Obama and his team will nurture the next generation of progressive leadership.
It is right that Obama brings in tested talent and experienced leaders to address the massive problems we face today. But, new leaders will be needed down the line. Obama inspired a new generation of voters to get involved in politics. Now, he needs to inspire and offer that generation opportunities to get involved in governance. And while newcomers from varied backgrounds can’t expect the top jobs at present, they should expect places down the chain, so they can learn and grow and be ready to step into leadership when the time comes.
The best way to retain a progressive majority for the future is to make government work again. Obama gets that, as choices for his team show. His short-term challenge was to bring together a talented and experienced team to address the problems we face now. Over the long-term, lasting change will require attracting new talent (including folks without long Washington resumes) to government and giving them the opportunity to learn from the best. My sense is Obama gets that too.
… pundit comments…
Ezra:
<
p>
<
p>Rick Hertzberg via Ezra:
<
p>
<
p>That last part, I think, is important. Learning from mistakes is a very reality-based thing to do. To try again to repeat a doctrine of failed ideology is what we’ve been dealing with for decades of conservative thought now.
<
p>Time will tell whether he’s been appointing learners or ideologues, but I tend to give him the benefit of the doubt. Rubin has been shown convincingly to not be immune to data, and most of the fiscal team comes from his ‘camp’.
I for one am THRILLED to see Obama surround himself with people who are not only competent and intelligent, but also have experience in the system and know how to navigate the politics and bureaucracy of Washington.
<
p>When Gov. Patrick took office, he seemed to forgo established Beacon Hill insiders, saying he wanted the best people and the best ideas. But I think many would agree that his first year was sluggish (if not downright counterproductive on many issues) largely because he spent too much time getting his footing and making mistakes that more seasoned operatives would have been able to avoid.
<
p>The lesson learned is that “change” doesn’t mean we have to throw the baby out with the bathwater. In fact, doing so means the new administration can end up having to reinvent the wheel at the expense of hitting the ground running.
Bill Clinton was trapped into two military campaigns as soon as he arrive in office, Somalia and then restarting the bombing of Iraq. The assassination plot against Bush 1 was probably a total fabrication of Bush’s holdover CIA director and the Kuwaitis to keep Clinton bombing.
<
p>Let’s not forget that Bush 1 brought us Gulf War 1, a strategic waste and blunder if there ever was one. Now his team is in charge of defense under Gates, and Hillary who is more hawkish than Gates, is ready to get the wrecking balls swinging.
<
p>You’re going to see a dubious crisis get started in the first months of Obama’s presidency, in which he will be exhorted to show the size of his cojones by murdering foreigners. The exhorting will come from the left as well as the right which will be baying for blood.
is taking on a life of its own. I’d be interested to know exactly what leads you to say that. Many of the commenters I see making that claim refer to half-truths and outright untruths that have been repeated so many times they have taken on the mantle of conventional wisdom.
back in 2003, fully supporting the Iraq war. I remember I was wondering why would she do it.
the ‘change’ was as much a rejection of the ideologically driven know-nothing mentality of the last 8 years as it was a blatant endorsement of any one policy or person. just like the rejection of sarah palin had less to do with her policy positions than it did with her manifest ignorance of any issue beyond the most superficial.
<
p>generally speaking, voters said;
let’s have meaningful productive discussions on climate change. rather than just denying whether it even exists because it doesn’t fit in with the cosmology of the party in power. like has happened over the last 8 years.
<
p>or let’s have meaningful productive discussions on the role of government investment and regulation in the private sector, rather than the flip-off ‘tax and spend’ rhetoric that has been passed off as a mature professional address to an important omnibus issue.
<
p>this election has been less a triumph of the democrats, than it has been a defeat of the idealogues and the dumb-asses.
<
p>and gosh, it’s sure nice to see smart articulate professionals together up on the rostrum, irregardless of their party affiliation or political connections.
<
p>
… by Bush to have ideology triumph even over basic qualifications was evident in the way the CPA. From reviews:
<
p>
I for one only wanted change compared to the last eight years, not compared to the 1990s. I also think it’s great to build on strengths of former candidates for the nomination. I know in both this and the 2004 cycle when I watched the early Democratic debates, the thought that went through my head was how can we assemble a Cabinet out of these people. I think Edward’s might work for Secretary of Labor and I can’t imagine that having had an affair makes him THAT radioactive in terms of a Cabinet post.
And making him Secretary of Labor would be a mistake. If it is a former opponent picked for Secretary of Labor, it should be Sen. Dodds. At least he has some experience legislating in the area.
I’m sorry, but I don’t see it. Most people can’t even name most Cabinet members. I had hoped that Dodd would be AG when I was assembling a Cabinet from among the contenders, but I guess that is spoken for.
As a skeptic who wrote in my own ticket for POTUS at the polls this time around, I kind of knew that I wasn’t going to be trusting of what I’ve been observing in the way of Obama’s appointments thus far, but now that Obama’s been elected, we’ll have to see what he does once he takes office next month.