The Notion of a "Bipartisan Cabinet" Has Always Been a Stupid One
The Beltway centrist crowd is obsessed with the non-sensical notion that in order to demonstrate his bipartisan bona fides, a president should nominate members of the other party to serve in his cabinet. Even though Republican presidents never seem to succumb to this pressure, Democratic presidents always do. That's why Obama nominated Republican Senator Judd Gregg to be his Commerce Secretary, a move that, not surprisingly, didn't end up working out too well.
I'm all for bipartisanship in certain contexts, but the reality is that there are fundamental ideological and policy differences between the Republican and Democratic parties. Consequently, if you nominate a Republican to carry out a Democratic president's agenda in an area where the two parties have fundamental disagreements, the result is never going to be a good one.
I think one can make a case that Bob Gates is an exception to this general rule--that there isn't all that much policy disagreement between Gates and Obama, that continuity of leadership is important at the Pentagon right now, etc.--but none of those factors really applies in the Gregg situation. Unless it would have resulted in a pick up of a senate seat, I never understood the rationale for choosing Gregg.
There are plenty of ways in which a president can demonstrate that he's open minded and willing to work constructively with the opposition. But putting members of the opposition in charge of implementing his policy is just dumb. The fact that the Beltway centrist chorus believes that this is what good presidents should do is just a reflection of their own bizarre obsession with symbolism and belief that bipartisanship is some sort end in and of itself.
I think it's important for Obama to continue to appear respectful and bipartisan in his general governing approach, if for no other reason than to provide a contrast with the never-ending immaturity and childishness of the GOP. But the best way to do that is by sitting down and talking to Republicans, not putting them in charge of various executive branch departments.
I'm all for bipartisanship in certain contexts, but the reality is that there are fundamental ideological and policy differences between the Republican and Democratic parties. Consequently, if you nominate a Republican to carry out a Democratic president's agenda in an area where the two parties have fundamental disagreements, the result is never going to be a good one.
I think one can make a case that Bob Gates is an exception to this general rule--that there isn't all that much policy disagreement between Gates and Obama, that continuity of leadership is important at the Pentagon right now, etc.--but none of those factors really applies in the Gregg situation. Unless it would have resulted in a pick up of a senate seat, I never understood the rationale for choosing Gregg.
There are plenty of ways in which a president can demonstrate that he's open minded and willing to work constructively with the opposition. But putting members of the opposition in charge of implementing his policy is just dumb. The fact that the Beltway centrist chorus believes that this is what good presidents should do is just a reflection of their own bizarre obsession with symbolism and belief that bipartisanship is some sort end in and of itself.
I think it's important for Obama to continue to appear respectful and bipartisan in his general governing approach, if for no other reason than to provide a contrast with the never-ending immaturity and childishness of the GOP. But the best way to do that is by sitting down and talking to Republicans, not putting them in charge of various executive branch departments.
posted by A.L. at 11:24 AM
9 Comments:
You are right, it makes absolutely no sense in being bipartisan in economic matters, since that issue in itself is the root of ideological differences. Many countries have multipartisanship (because most countries don't have a two-party system) as a rule when it comes to defense matters. Presumably, politicians of all different colors will want to protect the country.
However, if you're trying to pass a bill meant to help poor people, it does not make a lot of sense to try get get the support of politicians whose ideology simply consists of opposing that very measure.
There is another issue though. Bipartisanship can work as a political cartel. Bipartisanship ensures that neither the Republicans or the Democrats will ever be challanged by a third party. On the traditional political scale, both American major parties are on the right, and there is no party on the actual left.
Hey, David Broder thinks a bipartisan cabinet is a great idea. Are you saying the Dean of Washington journalism is wrong?
Seriously: if we wanted no-talent Republican assclowns in cabinet-level positions, we would have voted for their alpha assclown.
Bipartisanship shouldn't exist solely for bipartisanship sake. The best person should be picked for the job who can carry out the wishes of the President. Obama keeps getting burned for not practicing this. Hopefully he will see the light soon.
I've been indoctrinated by so many "diversity training videos" that I actually believe that diversity is a worthwhile goal for its own sake.
Oddly, though, thinking back on all the projects I've worked on, "diversity" didn't make much difference in delivering the result. What did work was that all the people on the project had enough security that they could safely tell the project leadership bad news ("this isn't working", for example). Absent that ability, things often came to a bad end.
I don't see that "bipartisanship" would affect that dynamic one iota. (a commitment to "diversity" on the part of management does, as it evinces toleration of different viewpoints. Note that this was merely a commitment to diversity on the part of management, not actual diversity in the project team, which, in my opinion, does nothing by itself.)
I would therefore assert that, by agreeing to nominate Gregg, Obama has already demonstrated that he has the right attitude. Having Gregg actually serve is unnecessary -- and, considering his inability to sustain a major decision for more than a week or so, a bad idea.
I understand the wish to nominate a congress-critter to the cabinet -- it makes confirmation a lot easier, and they understand how Congress is hopelessly screwed up, so there's less worry they'll get in trouble with the committees.
On the other hand, I think we have plenty of recent examples which are evidence that skill in getting elected to public office is not indicative of honesty, management skills, or even rationality. If Obama wants a truly capable individual, perhaps he should cast a wider net.
This post has been removed by the author.
Bipartisanship can work, but it takes more than just the president to make it work. The recent failure of bipartisanship wasn't due to anything the Obama did. Rather, Republicans and their leadership (Rush Limbaugh, har har) decided to go for obstructionism rather than bipartisanship. Hoping to show that the Democrats and the president are unable to lead by obstructing all efforts of working together, the Republicans are hoping to make the party in power look bad in the eyes of the American public. Whether it will work or not, time will tell.
Bipartisan efforts can work if both sides are willing to work together. In this instance, one side was willing to make concessions while the other only pretended to cooperate, then backed out when the voting came. It can work, but it didn't work here.
http://political-heat.blogspot.com/
The truly great Presidents (Lincoln, FDR) have been bipartisan. Not only that, they managed to hive off enought of the opposing party so as to condemn it to a minority position for a generation or more. The GOP is heading the same way, unless it can divest itself of the Limbaughs and the Cantors.
You also forget that the Village (including Dean Broder) is only a fan of bipartisanship when the Democrats are in control - not so much when the Republicans are on top and won't give the Dems so much as the time of day.
R.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home