Changing of the Guard: Three Appointments

Obama’s transition team is working very quickly to prepare for inauguration day. The peaceful transition of leadership is one of democracy's most amazing events, and it is critical that the new administration be ready to step up. Obama and his advisers are doing a lot to prove that they will be “ready on day one,” to use the familiar cliché.

CNN reports that Obama is announcing his picks earlier than traditional for the President-elect. The comments coming from the Obama camp indicate that this is an intentional move to reassure the American people that Obama is in control. Economic appointments have been particularly swift, a wise choice considering that the economic crisis cannot be put on hold until the swearing ceremony.

All these appointments (some official, most leaked) have given the press a bevy of material to talk about. After all, these appointees will be doing much of the day-to-day work of government, and their success or failure (see “Brownie” for details) will have a great impact on the nation. The commentary varies widely; depending on who you listen to, the appointees are too liberal, too conservative, too establishment, or just right. From my limited exploration, the buzz seems generally positive.

Three appointments in particular have been greatly discussed, and I’d like to provide my own take on them. So let’s take a look at Rahm Emmanuel, Hillary Clinton, and Robert Gates.

One of Obama’s first appointments was Rahm Emmanuel as White House Chief of Staff. Almost immediately Obama’s detractors interpreted this as a sign that his post-partisan rhetoric was a sham. Emmanuel has a reputation for strong-arm legislative tactics, and even gained the nickname Rahm-bo. At first the right-wing criticism seems to make sense here; if you’re trying to usher in an era of bipartisan cooperation, why make your right hand man someone that specializes in ramming legislation down the opposition’s throat? I don’t have a great answer to that question myself, but just because Emmanuel has been rough in the past does not mean that will be the starting point for the Obama administration. Rather, I bet he will be the pit bull that gets unleashed only when necessary. If there’s something that Obama really thinks is important, and cooperation hasn’t worked, then hopefully Emmanuel can provide a solution. While Emmanuel’s post is certainly an important one, there’s no reason to believe his old style politics will define Obama’s approach. In fact, if you’re trying to change the game, you may need someone that is an expert at winning the old version. *Aside (mostly irrelevant, but interesting): for TV fans, there are rumors that Josh Lyman from The West Wing was based on Emmanuel and Ari Gold from Entourage was based on his brother.

Though it has not been publicly announced, reliable sources indicate that Hillary Clinton has accepted an offer to be Secretary of State. Again, there is a reasonable criticism here. After Obama questioned how being First Lady gives you foreign policy experience, and Clinton attacked Obama for his willingness to negotiate with American enemies, they’re going to work together? However, I think the move is again a smart one. Campaign rhetoric aside, Clinton is very smart and very capable. After all the primary nastiness, putting her in such a prominent position sends a clear message to all the Clinton supporters: “we remember you, too.” But that’s mostly pragmatic and political, what about actually doing the job? I’ll admit that there are probably more qualified foreign policy experts, but Clinton has the personality and leadership experience to run a very tight ship over at State. That’s what is most important for the position, along with an ability to understand and advocate for the policy positions the whole foreign policy team comes up with.

Now here’s the really interesting one. Obama ran on a platform of “change,” so why is he keeping Secretary of Defense Robert Gates? Gates was appointed in 2006, replacing the much-maligned Donald Rumsfeld after the “thumpin” the Republicans received in the midterms. Since then he has run the DoD, obviously including the Iraq War and its part in the War on Terror. Given that Obama is planning to drastically change course on defense policy, his decision to keep Gates has drawn criticism. Like the Hillary appointment, this seems to be a part of his Lincoln-inspired “team of rivals” approach. The idea is to encourage dissent and debate within his circle of advisors, and thus avoid the ideological incest that characterized the Bush administration. I think this is a good plan. After all, one of the key assumptions of democracy is that discussion and debate help lead to the best policy. That’s a good philosophy to have internally as well, as it allows Obama to synthesize different viewpoints and come to a decision. Obviously, without cooperation, such an approach can disintegrate if everyone starts pulling in different directions. If everyone is willing to abide by the President’s final judgment, though, it could turn out great.

So, three interesting appointments – though they don’t seem to make a great deal of sense at first, I’m optimistic that they will be good choices. Feel free to disagree because I certainly don’t know as much as I should about these people. Sorry this turned out so long.