So far, it appears my decision to give the new president the benefit of the doubt is going to be repaid with nothing but heartache and disappointment. Well, perhaps that's an overstatement. Still, it's hard to find any encouraging in the following:
First, the Dems are in the process of enacting a "stimulus" bill that appears to have almost nothing to do with stimulating the economy. Rather, it's nothing more than a spending bill designed to reward every liberal constituency imaginable for their support of Obama and the Democrat-controlled Congress. How else to explain doling out over $4 billion to groups like ACORN? Where's the "stimulus" in that?
During the campaign, Obama told the American people over and over again that he would pay for his new programs by cutting spending in other areas. Now we are looking at new spending of something like a trillion dollars a year, so we have not only that to pay for, but also no foreseeable way to pay for Obama's other new spending promises.
The recession is clearly just an excuse for this spending rampage, not the reason for it. Only a small fraction of the spending is truly stimulative, and most of it won't take place soon enough to do the economy any immediate good.
The hypocrisy of this is truly astounding. For years, Democrats complained about how the Iraq war was bankrupting the government and driving the economy down the drain. Now, barely a week into the new administration, the Dems are already adding in new spending an amount equivalent to twice what the war in Iraq has cost since its inception. And for what? What does the average American get in exchange for trillion dollar deficits?
The only good news in this is that House Republicans managed to stick together and unanimously oppose the so-called stimulus package. That should help them in the 2010 midterm elections.
In other depressing news, Obama gave an interview to an Arab-language TV network in which he bent over backward to validate claims that U.S. policy toward the Muslim world over the last thirty years has been disrespectful and arrogant. The American media seemed in awe of Obama for "reaching out" to Muslims in such a clever way, ignoring the fact that, in so doing, the president essentially tossed away whatever credibility and moral standing the U.S. had built up in that part of the world under previous Democratic and Republic administrations alike.
Hopefully, the day will arrive -- and soon -- when people's perception of Obama matches the reality. That's all I ask.
Showing posts with label Obama. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Obama. Show all posts
Thursday, January 29, 2009
Tuesday, January 13, 2009
Happy New Year!
I haven't blogged for a while, opting to focus on hot stove baseball and only occasionally ceding attention to the news of the world. I think I've been awaiting the moment when seemingly random and disconnected pieces of news, like notes tapped on a distant piano, form a recognizable pattern -- a melody -- and the randomness of it all suddenly disappears.
The music analogy is not entirely on point. What I'm talking about, and what I was hoping to discern from the cascade of events surrounding the Obama transition, is better described as a narrative. History is happening right now, but we are only privy to a small part of it. We learn about certain events or happenings through the distorted lens of the media, and we do our best to extrapolate from those data points the larger story that is unfolding. Or at least I do.
For those of us who crave a narrative (and who therefore assume history, in fact, is supposed to make sense), life becomes somewhat easier during presidential election years. For that is the time when the candidates and their followers make their narratives most explicit. For example, Democratic opinion-makers generally portrayed Bush as a reckless imbecile who was responsible for destroying America's moral standing in the world. This offered people a convenient framework for understanding the events of the last eight years, which they could supplement with their own observations and suppositions.
It's worth pointing out that, the more one knows, the more complicated the task of finding and adhering to a satisfactory narrative becomes. A person who knows next to nothing about current events could choose to believe either that Bush is a reckless imbecile or that he's been a great defender of freedom. For a person lacking a reasonable grasp of the facts, there would be no occasion for information to come up tending to dispel the chosen narrative. They can literally believe whatever they want. For people who are very well informed, on the other hand, it takes a lot more care and thinking in order to formulate a narrative, because they will be constantly forced to deal with facts and opinions that don't seem to fit. Ultimately, dealing with such inconsistencies is likely to involve accepting that the truth is not as clear or as simple as initially imagined. A person who sets out believing FDR was a near god-like leader is going to have to reconsider that appraisal once confronted with the reality of Court-packing or the internment of Japanese-Americans, for example. Ultimately, such a person is likely to qualify their praise for Roosevelt or even change his or her mind completely.
Getting back to more recent events, I am forced to revisit my pre-election assessment of Barack Obama. As various previous blogposts will attest, I came to see Barack Obama as something of a crypto-socialist who was using America's hunger for inspiration as a means to obscure his true leftist agenda. In my view, there was plenty of evidence for both strands of this narrative, i.e., that Obama was indeed a man of the Left, and that his popular support was mainly a product of emotionalism and symbolism.
Happily, I can now say nothing has happened since the election to sustain the impression that Obama is a radical leftist. In fact, if he is a crypto-anything, it seems most likely he's a crypto-centrist. There is simply no way to interpret his actions during the transition in a manner consistent with those of a true leftist.
Start with his appointments. He retained Bush's Defense Secretary, tapped Hillary for State, and assembled an economic team Wall Street wizards can appreciate. His chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, is a solid liberal but also a strong supporter of Israel.
Beyond these personnel decisions, Obama has expressed sympathy for Israel's attack against Hamas and seems completely uninterested in pursuing legal actions against Bush Administration officials involved in the "torture" controversy. He has expressly downgraded the prospects for implementing major portions of the sweeping domestic agenda he outlined during the campaign due to the exigencies of the present economic crisis (which he apparently thinks will be of long duration). He has nominally included a host of tax cuts in his stimulus plan (although there is reason to question the characterization of those measures as tax cuts). On top of all that, his attitude toward Bush and the outgoing administration appears to be one of at least token respect. He has done nothing to fan the attitude of contempt toward Bush that liberals have stoked over the last eight years. No wonder various quarters of the left seem dazed and confused.
I am by no means ready to climb out on a limb and declare that the conventional, centrist Obama I've perceived over the last eight weeks or so is the real Obama. (Hell, he's not even president yet!) But the narrative to which I previously adhered no longer fits. For now at least, what seems to make the most sense goes something like this:
Obama doesn't have a clear political ideology. He is a thoughtful, introspective guy who became fixated on issues of race and personal identity due to his unconventional background and upbringing. In his lifelong search for a way to fit in, he has gravitated toward people with strong leftist views, but has never internalized leftist doctrine as a practical or effective governing philosophy. He is comfortable in leftist circles, but he doesn't really buy into the program. In this sense, he is not unlike professed Catholics who go to Mass and appreciate the company of other Catholics, but who don't truly believe in the Resurrection of Christ.
Obama's sentimental attachment to leftism made it easy for him to attract the support of both inner-city blacks and upper class whites in Chicago. His looks and oratorical skills made him a phenomenon. Finally, sheer luck placed him in a position to enter the national stage at a time when the country was practically begging for the chance to elect someone who had opposed the war in Iraq.
Even with all he had going for him, it still took a brilliant campaign, a flawed Republican opponent, and a major financial crisis to put Obama into the White House. Looking back, however, Obama was never required to really reveal his true ideological colors, whatever they were. Liberals were encouraged to believe he was one of them. Moderates and conservatives were given assurances that they had nothing to fear.
Now that Obama has been elected, it appears to be the lefties who are holding the short straw. The new president is not a taller version of Dennis Kucinich. He may be nothing more than a less roguish version of Bill Clinton. In fact, one cannot rule out the possibility that he's a younger and hipper version of George H.W. Bush.
An Obama who is not innately driven to pursue a particular ideological agenda is more likely to be motivated by a fear of spectacular failure in office rather than a hunger for spectacular success. I don't think I have ever heard anyone make this point, but if Obama is really invested in the idea of being the first black president, he may well feel a lot of internal pressure not to ruin the prospects for future black candidates by making a total botch of it. The same notion arguably applies to his youth and inexperience: perhaps he feels the need simply to prove he can handle the job, whatever that means in terms of taking the country in a particular direction. In short, it is easy to imagine that Obama's top priority is simply to not screw up royally.
Obama's actions to date, as discussed above, would seem consistent with that objective. For one thing, they appear calculated to neutralize his opponents. Republicans have lowered their daggers completely. Apart from their stiffening resistance to bailouts -- a position that started to take hold before the election -- the GOP is more focused on charting a new strategy for attracting voters than in giving Obama a hard time. And as for potential critics within his party, Obama could scarcely have done more since the election to woo fans of the Clintons than if he had invited Bill and Hillary to move back into the White House with him.
If my hypothesis is correct, and Obama is really underneath it all a conventional Washington moderate who is more interested in keeping the wheels on the country than in delivering radical change, it does not mean he will consistently disappoint the liberals who so passionately supported him over Hillary Clinton and John McCain. Obama is going to need to make good on at least some of his promises to them. His impending presidential order to close the detention center at Guantanamo Bay is a timely example, and may demonstrate the limits of Obama's ability to abandon commitments made to his liberal base during the campaign. Those kinds of discrete actions, however, will seem like thin gruel to frustrated lefties who are aching for a truly transformative epoch in American politics.
As I said, this is not a final verdict on Obama's political identity, but merely a new working theory. As events unfold, they will tend to either confirm or cast doubt on this hypothesis. Hopefully, they will confirm it, because the Barack Obama I am describing today is not nearly as scary as the one I thought existed a few months ago.
The music analogy is not entirely on point. What I'm talking about, and what I was hoping to discern from the cascade of events surrounding the Obama transition, is better described as a narrative. History is happening right now, but we are only privy to a small part of it. We learn about certain events or happenings through the distorted lens of the media, and we do our best to extrapolate from those data points the larger story that is unfolding. Or at least I do.
For those of us who crave a narrative (and who therefore assume history, in fact, is supposed to make sense), life becomes somewhat easier during presidential election years. For that is the time when the candidates and their followers make their narratives most explicit. For example, Democratic opinion-makers generally portrayed Bush as a reckless imbecile who was responsible for destroying America's moral standing in the world. This offered people a convenient framework for understanding the events of the last eight years, which they could supplement with their own observations and suppositions.
It's worth pointing out that, the more one knows, the more complicated the task of finding and adhering to a satisfactory narrative becomes. A person who knows next to nothing about current events could choose to believe either that Bush is a reckless imbecile or that he's been a great defender of freedom. For a person lacking a reasonable grasp of the facts, there would be no occasion for information to come up tending to dispel the chosen narrative. They can literally believe whatever they want. For people who are very well informed, on the other hand, it takes a lot more care and thinking in order to formulate a narrative, because they will be constantly forced to deal with facts and opinions that don't seem to fit. Ultimately, dealing with such inconsistencies is likely to involve accepting that the truth is not as clear or as simple as initially imagined. A person who sets out believing FDR was a near god-like leader is going to have to reconsider that appraisal once confronted with the reality of Court-packing or the internment of Japanese-Americans, for example. Ultimately, such a person is likely to qualify their praise for Roosevelt or even change his or her mind completely.
Getting back to more recent events, I am forced to revisit my pre-election assessment of Barack Obama. As various previous blogposts will attest, I came to see Barack Obama as something of a crypto-socialist who was using America's hunger for inspiration as a means to obscure his true leftist agenda. In my view, there was plenty of evidence for both strands of this narrative, i.e., that Obama was indeed a man of the Left, and that his popular support was mainly a product of emotionalism and symbolism.
Happily, I can now say nothing has happened since the election to sustain the impression that Obama is a radical leftist. In fact, if he is a crypto-anything, it seems most likely he's a crypto-centrist. There is simply no way to interpret his actions during the transition in a manner consistent with those of a true leftist.
Start with his appointments. He retained Bush's Defense Secretary, tapped Hillary for State, and assembled an economic team Wall Street wizards can appreciate. His chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, is a solid liberal but also a strong supporter of Israel.
Beyond these personnel decisions, Obama has expressed sympathy for Israel's attack against Hamas and seems completely uninterested in pursuing legal actions against Bush Administration officials involved in the "torture" controversy. He has expressly downgraded the prospects for implementing major portions of the sweeping domestic agenda he outlined during the campaign due to the exigencies of the present economic crisis (which he apparently thinks will be of long duration). He has nominally included a host of tax cuts in his stimulus plan (although there is reason to question the characterization of those measures as tax cuts). On top of all that, his attitude toward Bush and the outgoing administration appears to be one of at least token respect. He has done nothing to fan the attitude of contempt toward Bush that liberals have stoked over the last eight years. No wonder various quarters of the left seem dazed and confused.
I am by no means ready to climb out on a limb and declare that the conventional, centrist Obama I've perceived over the last eight weeks or so is the real Obama. (Hell, he's not even president yet!) But the narrative to which I previously adhered no longer fits. For now at least, what seems to make the most sense goes something like this:
Obama doesn't have a clear political ideology. He is a thoughtful, introspective guy who became fixated on issues of race and personal identity due to his unconventional background and upbringing. In his lifelong search for a way to fit in, he has gravitated toward people with strong leftist views, but has never internalized leftist doctrine as a practical or effective governing philosophy. He is comfortable in leftist circles, but he doesn't really buy into the program. In this sense, he is not unlike professed Catholics who go to Mass and appreciate the company of other Catholics, but who don't truly believe in the Resurrection of Christ.
Obama's sentimental attachment to leftism made it easy for him to attract the support of both inner-city blacks and upper class whites in Chicago. His looks and oratorical skills made him a phenomenon. Finally, sheer luck placed him in a position to enter the national stage at a time when the country was practically begging for the chance to elect someone who had opposed the war in Iraq.
Even with all he had going for him, it still took a brilliant campaign, a flawed Republican opponent, and a major financial crisis to put Obama into the White House. Looking back, however, Obama was never required to really reveal his true ideological colors, whatever they were. Liberals were encouraged to believe he was one of them. Moderates and conservatives were given assurances that they had nothing to fear.
Now that Obama has been elected, it appears to be the lefties who are holding the short straw. The new president is not a taller version of Dennis Kucinich. He may be nothing more than a less roguish version of Bill Clinton. In fact, one cannot rule out the possibility that he's a younger and hipper version of George H.W. Bush.
An Obama who is not innately driven to pursue a particular ideological agenda is more likely to be motivated by a fear of spectacular failure in office rather than a hunger for spectacular success. I don't think I have ever heard anyone make this point, but if Obama is really invested in the idea of being the first black president, he may well feel a lot of internal pressure not to ruin the prospects for future black candidates by making a total botch of it. The same notion arguably applies to his youth and inexperience: perhaps he feels the need simply to prove he can handle the job, whatever that means in terms of taking the country in a particular direction. In short, it is easy to imagine that Obama's top priority is simply to not screw up royally.
Obama's actions to date, as discussed above, would seem consistent with that objective. For one thing, they appear calculated to neutralize his opponents. Republicans have lowered their daggers completely. Apart from their stiffening resistance to bailouts -- a position that started to take hold before the election -- the GOP is more focused on charting a new strategy for attracting voters than in giving Obama a hard time. And as for potential critics within his party, Obama could scarcely have done more since the election to woo fans of the Clintons than if he had invited Bill and Hillary to move back into the White House with him.
If my hypothesis is correct, and Obama is really underneath it all a conventional Washington moderate who is more interested in keeping the wheels on the country than in delivering radical change, it does not mean he will consistently disappoint the liberals who so passionately supported him over Hillary Clinton and John McCain. Obama is going to need to make good on at least some of his promises to them. His impending presidential order to close the detention center at Guantanamo Bay is a timely example, and may demonstrate the limits of Obama's ability to abandon commitments made to his liberal base during the campaign. Those kinds of discrete actions, however, will seem like thin gruel to frustrated lefties who are aching for a truly transformative epoch in American politics.
As I said, this is not a final verdict on Obama's political identity, but merely a new working theory. As events unfold, they will tend to either confirm or cast doubt on this hypothesis. Hopefully, they will confirm it, because the Barack Obama I am describing today is not nearly as scary as the one I thought existed a few months ago.
Tuesday, December 9, 2008
Obama finds lump of coal in his Fitzmas stocking
Barack Obama can't be too pleased with U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald's investigation and arrest of Governor Rod Blagojevich and an aide on corruption charges.
A quick read of the U.S. Attorney's press release discloses allegations of corruption that are almost mind-blowing in their depth and scope. According to investigators, Blagojevich was conducting a veritable auction of the president-elect's former U.S. Senate seat, which he resigned last month and which Illinois law empowers the sitting governor to fill pending the next election. (Remind me why Obama decided to resign so quickly?) The governor was evidently basing his decision on whom to appoint according to which candidate could deliver up the most attractive combination of goodies for himself and his wife. Blagojevich made it clear that he wanted money for himself and his campaign coffers and a job that would keep him politically viable. He was also worried about the ongoing criminal investigation and for some reason thought appointing himself to the Senate seat might prove useful in expanding his future legal defense options.
The feds' takedown of Blagojevich hits a little too close to home for Obama. First, it's a reminder of the swamp of corruption from which Obama's hope-and-changey movement paradoxically arose. Second, and more immediately, it appears that Blagojevich sought to include the incoming administration in the wheeling and dealing over the vacant Senate seat. The press release outlines a three-way scheme whereby the governor would appoint a candidate favored by the president-elect, a union would create a high-paying position for Blagojevich, and the new administration would pay back the union at some later date. While it's not alleged that Obama knew about, let alone would have gone along with, such a deal, the fact that it was even being discussed suggests that Obama may not be regarded as Mr. Clean within Illinois political circles.
Obama connections aside, it's just not a very pretty picture. For example, Blagojevich was allegedly trying to get the editorial staff of the Tribune fired as a condition for securing state assistance in helping the cash-strapped newspaper's parent company in selling the Cubs. Evidently, "pay for play" was pretty much SOP in Blagojevich's administration.
This is a serious mess for Illinois and the kind of trouble back home Obama doesn't need. It will be interesting to see how well Obama can distance himself from it and whether, indeed, Blagojevich will let him.
A quick read of the U.S. Attorney's press release discloses allegations of corruption that are almost mind-blowing in their depth and scope. According to investigators, Blagojevich was conducting a veritable auction of the president-elect's former U.S. Senate seat, which he resigned last month and which Illinois law empowers the sitting governor to fill pending the next election. (Remind me why Obama decided to resign so quickly?) The governor was evidently basing his decision on whom to appoint according to which candidate could deliver up the most attractive combination of goodies for himself and his wife. Blagojevich made it clear that he wanted money for himself and his campaign coffers and a job that would keep him politically viable. He was also worried about the ongoing criminal investigation and for some reason thought appointing himself to the Senate seat might prove useful in expanding his future legal defense options.
The feds' takedown of Blagojevich hits a little too close to home for Obama. First, it's a reminder of the swamp of corruption from which Obama's hope-and-changey movement paradoxically arose. Second, and more immediately, it appears that Blagojevich sought to include the incoming administration in the wheeling and dealing over the vacant Senate seat. The press release outlines a three-way scheme whereby the governor would appoint a candidate favored by the president-elect, a union would create a high-paying position for Blagojevich, and the new administration would pay back the union at some later date. While it's not alleged that Obama knew about, let alone would have gone along with, such a deal, the fact that it was even being discussed suggests that Obama may not be regarded as Mr. Clean within Illinois political circles.
Obama connections aside, it's just not a very pretty picture. For example, Blagojevich was allegedly trying to get the editorial staff of the Tribune fired as a condition for securing state assistance in helping the cash-strapped newspaper's parent company in selling the Cubs. Evidently, "pay for play" was pretty much SOP in Blagojevich's administration.
This is a serious mess for Illinois and the kind of trouble back home Obama doesn't need. It will be interesting to see how well Obama can distance himself from it and whether, indeed, Blagojevich will let him.
Who's really in charge? Hillary Clinton vs. Susan Rice
Hillary Clinton's appointment to the office of Secretary of State has received a lot of attention for two reasons. First, Obama' selection of Hillary supposedly evoked the "team of rivals" strategy that Lincoln took in assembling his cabinet (although Lincoln's machinations in this regard have been completely over-hyped, a subject we need not revisit here). Second, the appointment of the relatively hawkish Hillary has been cited as further evidence of Obama's screwing over of the lefties who helped get him elected.
Another aspect of the appointment that deserves comment is the prospective role of Dr. Susan Rice in implementing the new administration's foreign policy. The president-elect has designated Rice to serve as U.N. Ambassador and has elevated that position to cabinet-level rank.
I'm frankly surprised that Hillary went along with the move to elevate the U.N. Ambassador to cabinet-level rank. What that move essentially means is that, while Hillary will be the nation's chief diplomat, and thus the putative architect of U.S. foreign policy, she will not be in charge of our diplomatic mission to the U.N. Where's the logic in that beyond Obama's apparent desire to toss a face-saving bone to Dr. Rice?
From a management standpoint, the idea of having the U.N. Ambassador report directly to the POTUS rather than the Secretary of State seems badly misguided. The only mitigating factors I see are the fact that there is precedent for the move from as recently as the Clinton Administration and the fact that Secretary of State is considered the highest-ranking post in the cabinet (although this is only formally true for purposes of presidential succession and protocol). Perhaps Hillary figured her status as Secretary of State would speak for itself, notwithstanding Obama's efforts to placate Dr. Rice and her supporters.
It may be of little practical consequence, but something about this decision just doesn't sit well with me. It strikes me as the personnel equivalent of voting "present." If Obama wanted Hillary in charge of foreign policy, he should have given her the whole thing, and not carved out a piece of it for the person many people thought he should have picked instead of Hillary. Let's hope he's not being too clever for his own good.
Another aspect of the appointment that deserves comment is the prospective role of Dr. Susan Rice in implementing the new administration's foreign policy. The president-elect has designated Rice to serve as U.N. Ambassador and has elevated that position to cabinet-level rank.
I'm frankly surprised that Hillary went along with the move to elevate the U.N. Ambassador to cabinet-level rank. What that move essentially means is that, while Hillary will be the nation's chief diplomat, and thus the putative architect of U.S. foreign policy, she will not be in charge of our diplomatic mission to the U.N. Where's the logic in that beyond Obama's apparent desire to toss a face-saving bone to Dr. Rice?
From a management standpoint, the idea of having the U.N. Ambassador report directly to the POTUS rather than the Secretary of State seems badly misguided. The only mitigating factors I see are the fact that there is precedent for the move from as recently as the Clinton Administration and the fact that Secretary of State is considered the highest-ranking post in the cabinet (although this is only formally true for purposes of presidential succession and protocol). Perhaps Hillary figured her status as Secretary of State would speak for itself, notwithstanding Obama's efforts to placate Dr. Rice and her supporters.
It may be of little practical consequence, but something about this decision just doesn't sit well with me. It strikes me as the personnel equivalent of voting "present." If Obama wanted Hillary in charge of foreign policy, he should have given her the whole thing, and not carved out a piece of it for the person many people thought he should have picked instead of Hillary. Let's hope he's not being too clever for his own good.
Friday, November 14, 2008
Campaign flashback: "Palling around with terrorists"
Associated Press "News Analysis", Oct. 5, headlined "Palin's words carry a racial tinge":
"Her reference to Obama's relationship with William Ayers, a member of the Vietnam-era Weather Underground, was exaggerated at best if not outright false. No evidence shows they were 'pals' or even close when they worked on community boards years ago and Ayers hosted a political event for Obama early in his career." (Emphasis added.)
Bill Ayers, discussing his relationship with Obama in a forward to his book:
"[W]e had served together on the board of a foundation, knew one another as neighbors and family friends, held an initial fund-raiser at my house, where I'd made a small donation to his earliest political campaign." (Emphasis added.)
So apparently they weren't "pals," just "friends." The distinction certainly warrants the AP's calling Sarah Palin a racist liar.
"Her reference to Obama's relationship with William Ayers, a member of the Vietnam-era Weather Underground, was exaggerated at best if not outright false. No evidence shows they were 'pals' or even close when they worked on community boards years ago and Ayers hosted a political event for Obama early in his career." (Emphasis added.)
Bill Ayers, discussing his relationship with Obama in a forward to his book:
"[W]e had served together on the board of a foundation, knew one another as neighbors and family friends, held an initial fund-raiser at my house, where I'd made a small donation to his earliest political campaign." (Emphasis added.)
So apparently they weren't "pals," just "friends." The distinction certainly warrants the AP's calling Sarah Palin a racist liar.
Obama's "Team of Rivals"?
Apparently some people are treating Obama's reported interest in Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State as an act of political genius similar to Lincoln's deft assembly of a "Team of Rivals" to comprise his cabinet. I think this meme gives much too much credit to both Lincoln and Obama.
Lincoln didn't exactly invent the idea of naming strong leaders from a president's own party to cabinet positions. And few if any members of Lincoln's cabinet needed his close supervision to deter them from conspiring to unseat him. Seward was disappointed at losing the nomination in 1860 but had no difficulty accepting Lincoln as his party's leader. Stanton may have been a Lincoln skeptic, but he was wasn't even a candidate in '60, let alone a political force Lincoln needed to worry about. Edward Bates clearly lacked the ambition to intrigue against Lincoln. If memory serves, he could barely be troubled to move to Washington to join the cabinet. In fact, the only cabinet official deserving of a short leash was Salmon Chase, and it's far from clear that Lincoln spared himself any heartache by putting him at Treasury.
As for Obama and Hillary, for reasons discussed in my previous post, appointing her as Secretary of State does virtually nothing to neutralize her as a potential rival. Obama's energies should be focused on performing well as president, not worrying about what Hillary does.
Lincoln didn't exactly invent the idea of naming strong leaders from a president's own party to cabinet positions. And few if any members of Lincoln's cabinet needed his close supervision to deter them from conspiring to unseat him. Seward was disappointed at losing the nomination in 1860 but had no difficulty accepting Lincoln as his party's leader. Stanton may have been a Lincoln skeptic, but he was wasn't even a candidate in '60, let alone a political force Lincoln needed to worry about. Edward Bates clearly lacked the ambition to intrigue against Lincoln. If memory serves, he could barely be troubled to move to Washington to join the cabinet. In fact, the only cabinet official deserving of a short leash was Salmon Chase, and it's far from clear that Lincoln spared himself any heartache by putting him at Treasury.
As for Obama and Hillary, for reasons discussed in my previous post, appointing her as Secretary of State does virtually nothing to neutralize her as a potential rival. Obama's energies should be focused on performing well as president, not worrying about what Hillary does.
Hillary for Secretary of State?
I'm not sure how seriously to take this, but the name Hillary Rodham Clinton is being floated as a possible Secretary of State in the Obama Administration.
I don't think Hillary would necessarily be a disaster in this role, but it's not a pick that would inspire confidence.
First, her singular focus in the public arena has been on domestic policy. Assuming it would take a top-level cabinet post to entice her to leave the Senate, she would be best suited for Attorney General.
Apart from her lack of expertise in foreign policy, Hillary seems ill fit for Foggy Bottom for reasons of personality and temperament. If the last 16 years have taught us anything about Hillary, it's that she's a fighter, rather than a diplomat, a hard-nosed tactician rather than a grand strategist. It's hard to imagine her thriving in the genteel, nuanced world of international diplomacy.
So if this pick isn't motivated by the desire to find the best person to lead America's diplomatic corps, what is it about?
From Obama's perspective, there may be a couple of reasons why picking Hillary for State reasons may seem like a good idea. For one, it advances his goal of assembling an "all star" cabinet. As I've written before, however, I think a cabinet of "all-stars" needlessly raises expectations he will be hard-pressed to fulfill.
Another motive for Obama to pick Hillary may be to neutralize her as a potential rival in 2012. If that's his rational, however, it is incredibly craven. Surely, if Obama could outwit Hillary for the nomination when he was just an untested freshman senator, he would have no difficulty staving off an intra-party challenge from her as the incumbent president. If Obama is that worried about Hillary in 2012, he should do whatever he can to have a successful first term, including getting the best Secretary of State he can find.
Possibly, Obama's real worry in regard to Hillary is not that she will try to unseat him in 2012, but that she'll undermine his administration in other ways. In that case, he might imagine that involving Hillary in the arcane machinations of foreign affairs will prevent her from engaging in acts of domestic political sabotage. But of course it wouldn't. If anything, the State Department would provide Hillary with plausible cover to engage in whatever nefarious intrigues she could devise.
Truthfully, I can't think of any good reason Obama would want Hillary as Secretary of State.
From Hillary's perspective, it's possible she would envision a stint as Secretary of State as something that would enhance her future presidential prospects. Undoubtedly, it would, assuming she didn't make a botch of it. As a practical matter, however, she probably doesn't need to punch up her resume in order to get back into presidential contention.
The best reason I can think of Hillary to accept this appointment is ambivalence about Obama's prospects for a successful first term. The Secretary of State tends to operate semi-autonomously and, of course, within an area of responsibility many voters studiously ignore. If Obama stumbles badly in the Oval Office, and particularly if the country is mired in deep economic troubles, a Secretary of State Hillary Clinton would likely avoid any responsibility for the mess. Even as senator her reputation would be at risk, since she would presumably have to support Obama's domestic agenda. The State Department offers Hillary the best of all worlds: a powerful, high-visibility position in the new administration, further enhancement of her presidential qualifications, and insurance against the risk that Obama will fall flat on his face.
I don't think Hillary would necessarily be a disaster in this role, but it's not a pick that would inspire confidence.
First, her singular focus in the public arena has been on domestic policy. Assuming it would take a top-level cabinet post to entice her to leave the Senate, she would be best suited for Attorney General.
Apart from her lack of expertise in foreign policy, Hillary seems ill fit for Foggy Bottom for reasons of personality and temperament. If the last 16 years have taught us anything about Hillary, it's that she's a fighter, rather than a diplomat, a hard-nosed tactician rather than a grand strategist. It's hard to imagine her thriving in the genteel, nuanced world of international diplomacy.
So if this pick isn't motivated by the desire to find the best person to lead America's diplomatic corps, what is it about?
From Obama's perspective, there may be a couple of reasons why picking Hillary for State reasons may seem like a good idea. For one, it advances his goal of assembling an "all star" cabinet. As I've written before, however, I think a cabinet of "all-stars" needlessly raises expectations he will be hard-pressed to fulfill.
Another motive for Obama to pick Hillary may be to neutralize her as a potential rival in 2012. If that's his rational, however, it is incredibly craven. Surely, if Obama could outwit Hillary for the nomination when he was just an untested freshman senator, he would have no difficulty staving off an intra-party challenge from her as the incumbent president. If Obama is that worried about Hillary in 2012, he should do whatever he can to have a successful first term, including getting the best Secretary of State he can find.
Possibly, Obama's real worry in regard to Hillary is not that she will try to unseat him in 2012, but that she'll undermine his administration in other ways. In that case, he might imagine that involving Hillary in the arcane machinations of foreign affairs will prevent her from engaging in acts of domestic political sabotage. But of course it wouldn't. If anything, the State Department would provide Hillary with plausible cover to engage in whatever nefarious intrigues she could devise.
Truthfully, I can't think of any good reason Obama would want Hillary as Secretary of State.
From Hillary's perspective, it's possible she would envision a stint as Secretary of State as something that would enhance her future presidential prospects. Undoubtedly, it would, assuming she didn't make a botch of it. As a practical matter, however, she probably doesn't need to punch up her resume in order to get back into presidential contention.
The best reason I can think of Hillary to accept this appointment is ambivalence about Obama's prospects for a successful first term. The Secretary of State tends to operate semi-autonomously and, of course, within an area of responsibility many voters studiously ignore. If Obama stumbles badly in the Oval Office, and particularly if the country is mired in deep economic troubles, a Secretary of State Hillary Clinton would likely avoid any responsibility for the mess. Even as senator her reputation would be at risk, since she would presumably have to support Obama's domestic agenda. The State Department offers Hillary the best of all worlds: a powerful, high-visibility position in the new administration, further enhancement of her presidential qualifications, and insurance against the risk that Obama will fall flat on his face.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
