Cabinet Stupidity
Anonymous Liberal makes a good point: “The Notion of a ‘Bipartisan Cabinet’ Has Always Been a Stupid One.”
Very stupid.
If you elect a Democrat, you get a Democratic Cabinet. It’s as simple as that. Or should be.
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.
“Bob Gates is an exception to this general rule,” A.L. states, and I think he’s right — whether or not you like Gates is beside the point. But there was no need for Obama to nominate Judd Gregg.
The symbolism — along with the approval of the likes of David Broder and his centrist ilk — just isn’t worth it.
opinions powered by SendLove.to
4 Responses to “Cabinet Stupidity”
So, when we next have a Republican president, I assume you will feel the same way, no need for any Democrats to apply?
Ha! As if it would ever be offered. Bipartisanship is something Republicans talk about only when they're out of power. Otherwise “your with me or with the terrorists.”
Of course, having a bipartisan cabinet is of some value. The practical reason we have freedom of speech is so that more than one idea is available to choose from. As was argued by Mill a hundred 50 years or ago (or so) now, even when the idea is dumb, it can remain of value in society because there is a requirement to debate, think, and defend. If you have a Cabinet where no one disagrees you end up with… something like Bush' second term. Of course, diversity of thought is not the only important thing in choosing a Cabinet, but it is of value.
I can't buy this idea, and the Moderate Voice is a curious place to try to peddle it. Despite what our party system suggests, the world is not divided into two distinct and incompatible ideologies; people have a range of beliefs. Managing a branch of government isn't entirely about crusading towards ideals, there's a large measure of nuts-and-bolts management involved. Finally, reasonable people who disagree can nonetheless work together.