As the Obama Administration comes into focus, it is hard to know which narrative to believe. Some say that Obama is building a team of rivals (especially now that Bill Richardson looks to be confirmed as Obama’s Secretary of Commerce), while others complain that he is not appointing top Republicans.
Of course, one narrative does not preclude the other, as the rivals Obama is assembling are Democratic politicians. His much-discussed meeting with John McCain, on the other hand, does not appear to have gone well enough for any specific proposal to emerge. (In fact, the meeting lasted half as long as planned, suggesting that all is still not rosy between Obama and his former rival.)
On the other hand, the underlying accusation of those who would want more Republicans in the Cabinet (that Obama is closing himself off, that he is going back on his promise of an inclusive politics) is hard to square with the image of Obama, Richardson, Clinton and Biden joining forces to reform America. (And it is not just the rivalry between Obama and Hillary that the new Administration could be looking to transcend. Clinton and Richardson’s reunion will also be fascinating to watch given the ugly recriminations that followed the New Mexico Governor’s decision to endorse Obama in the primaries.)
That is especially the case after eight years in which Bush was not just blamed for surrounding itself with Republicans but also for only listening to like-minded Republicans. That makes Obama’s decision to snob Democrats who endorsed him in the primaries (John Kerry as SoS or Tim Kaine as vice-president, for instance) in favor of Democrats who did not support him that much more noticeable.
It gives Obama the aura of post-partisanship without his having to make sacrifices at the altar of bi-partisanship. Obama’s decision to help Joe Lieberman keep his Senate chairmanship could have a similar consequence, as it will be harder for the press and for Republicans to accuse the Administration of silencing Senate critics in the future given that Obama stood by Joe “Obama-might-be-a-Marxist” Lieberman.
Of course, we do not know in what direction Obama will steer policy, potentially making this discussion moot. This analysis is only meant to suggest that Obama is navigating the transition in such a way as to gain some cover from the reflexively centrist press to implement progressive reforms. For now, Obama’s team has been providing us mixed signals.
Today, for instance, David Axelrod signaled that the incoming Administration might delay Obama’s campaign promise of rolling back Bush’s tax cuts for the wealthy, allowing the tax cuts to expire at the end of 2010 rather than passing legislation to roll it back sooner as Obama had suggested he would. The danger of this choice - beyond the fact that it would make it more difficult for Democrats to fund any other reform - is that it would appear to bolster the conservative trickle-down argument that higher taxes on the wealthy cripple the economy and that a healthy economy demands lower taxes. That is, of course, the argument McCain and Palin waged against Obama’s “socialistic” tax policies in the second half of October.
Update: That Hillary looks like she landed the job Richardson had been eying naturally complicates the Clinton-Richardson dynamic. Secretary of Commerce definitely feels like a consolation prize for the New Mexico Governor. Also, Hillary’s relationship with Sebelius could be charged. While there is no evidence that the two had tense moments, Clinton supporters were outraged that Obama might consider Sebelius as a vice-presidential nominee as if Hillary was the only woman who was allowed to be tapped for the post. That somewhat incomprehensible hostility might have contributed to Sebelius’s not making it into the final three (made up of Bayh, Biden and Kaine - only the latter of which was an Obama endorser).
Actually, most of the grousing I have seen (I don’t frequent conservative blogs or publications) is from leftists decrying the lack of ‘progressives’ among Obama appointees thus far. Most of these comments, however, are not accompanied by suggested appointees; the only names I have seen are Howard Dean (who is not nearly as ‘progressive’ as some of his boosters think), Russ Feingold (who has not evinced any interest in an executive post) and Sheila Bair for Treasury (passing strange that a Republican Bush appointee should become a ‘progressive’ favorite).
These complaints IMO confuse tactics and strategy, as does the criticism of Axelrod on the Bush tax cuts. It would be hard to justify to a lot of people raising taxes in the teeth of a recession; better to let the cuts expire in 2011 than to try and fail to repeal them earlier.
I am not that surprised the McCain-Obama meeting didn`t go as well as it could. Remember it took months for Clinton to get over her loss in the primaries so to expect McCain within 1-2 weeks after losing the General Election to be “happy” is expecting too much.
“Today, for instance, David Axelrod signaled that the incoming Administration might delay Obama’s campaign promise of rolling back Bush’s tax cuts for the wealthy, allowing the tax cuts to expire at the end of 2010 rather than passing legislation to roll it back sooner as Obama had suggested he would. The danger of this choice - beyond the fact that it would make it more difficult for Democrats to fund any other reform - is that it would appear to bolster the conservative trickle-down argument that higher taxes on the wealthy cripple the economy and that a healthy economy demands lower taxes. That is, of course, the argument McCain and Palin waged against Obama’s “socialistic” tax policies in the second half of October.”
************************
That’s a bit over the top. The tax cuts for the wealthy were a lousy idea, built on the rigid ideology of supply siders, but like Iraq, its one thing to rail against getting involved in the first place and entirely another thing to withdraw in the middle of an economic crisis without collateral damage. Most economists of every stripe agree that it is a lousy idea to raise taxes in the middle of a recession. You can get relief to the middle class - which is critical - and commit to infrastructure spending without raising taxes on the upper classes to fund it if you’re willing to risk a larger deficit and/or inflationary pressures - which seems eminently sensible when we’re about to go into the tank.
Its far too early to be making dark predictions. Obama doesn’t slot easily into any one camp (’progressive’, liberal’, centrist, conservative). Why not hold off a little until we see what he’s actually doing.
I agree with Zoot - lets wait to see what Obama does. He has started well and seems minded to run a pragmatic, problem solving administration which is exactly what the US population want.
It appears that Obama is not so much compiling a team of rivals but rather a team of grownups. The one thing that the names put forth so far have in common is that they are massive overachievers.
The other theme that seem to be occurring is that cabinet positions are being grouped together into super ministries with a very strong White House overseer or panel of advisers. Foreign Affairs and the Economy have been discussed in some detail but I read today that Energy Interior and Environment will also get this treatment and be grouped under a strong WH czar like Jones in FA and Summers in the Econ. Just a rumor I suppose.
The other post I am interested in seeing filled is Education. My preference would be C. Powell.
I have heard about Powell for Education, my question is why is a retired General good for Education? I haven`t heard anything Powell has said about Education (compared to defence or foreign affairs)
Education, so-called, could stand some outside the box input. America’s children each somehow withstand 20,000 hours of bs: burned out, neurotic, ignorant “teachers”, peer-group bullying and fad inculcating, indoctrination in slanted history, civics, and literature, painfully abstract math gibberish, unpalatable cafeteria food, silly gym waste-of-time crud (dodgeball, anyone?), and just plain warehousing while their parent(s)? slave away, lounge around, or do the incarceration thing. All to the tune of trillions of buckos. I say give old Vietnam war crimes coverupper Colin a shot (no pun) at this debacle.