Journalists, analysts, bloggers are trying to figure out to frame this most unusual presidential transition. No single thread runs through all of Obama's appointments and policy announcements, although many theories abound:
Competence? He's surrounding himself with the ablest heavyweights from the Clinton era and the spriteliest welterweights from the next generation. Americans like this; they're fed up with incompetence.
Sun-Tzu-t-ian? Gen. James Jones disagrees with Obama about a date-certain withdrawal from Iraq' Jones has the top foreign policy staff job in the land. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama differed profoundly about the tone of diplomacy; she's now the nation's chief diplomat. George Bush's Defense Department represented Iraq; its chief is staying about. Potential enemies are kept closer than some allies.
Forgiving? Previous, public, even major errors in judgment aren't disqualifying. Eric Holder, his incoming enforcer of the nation's laws, faces questions about the Marc Rich pardon and whether Holder was too beholden to his boss's wishes to exercise independent judgment. These questions are legitimate, and fairly pressing, and yet Obama had no hesitancy whatsoever about asking Holder to be his AG before he even ran the idea by a large number of outside advisers. That's forgiving. There's something humbling about making a mistake in public, about being forced to confront a bad choice; perhaps, in Obama's mind, there's something maturing about it as well. (Heck, Obama even talked with Los Angeles mayor Antonio Villaraigosa about a job. Villaraigosa admitted an extramarital affair less than two years ago.)
Rulebreaking? Normally, you appoint at least one major donor to a prize cabinet spot. Obama hasn't. Normally, you clear the decks and bring in a team you know will be loyal to you. Obama hasn't done that. Normally, you don't deliberately create two, equally robust centers of power and task them with sharing one portfolio; Obama egregiously violated this rule by appointing Tim Geithner to Treasury and asking Larry Summers to be National Economics Council director. (Can't he have his cake and eat it too? This is like having his cake... and eating three more cakes at the same time.) There will be conflict between Geither and Summers, unless one of them suddenly loses their nerve. Obama seems to take pride seeding these conflicts, out of which he will grow consensus. Oh, and he doesn't seem to be alarmed about dropping policy propsosals that no longer with fit with the times, including a winfdall profits tax on oil companies.
Post-partisan? Not that Obama has operated without partisanship. It's that he doesn't seem to believe that the partisan theatre of the past 15 years or so applies to his decision-making. He doesn't seem to worry when analyts predict that Republicans will "salivate" at the opportunity to question such-and-such a nominee, or that the public will pronounce its negative judgment.
| 
"He doesn't seem to worry when analyts predict that Republicans will "salivate" at the opportunity to question such-and-such a nominee, or that the public will pronounce its negative judgment."
This in particular seems exactly right - he didn't do anything during his campaign from a short-term political perspective, so it stands to follow that this principle would be even more pronounced in governance. (Of course, there's also something to be said for the fact that his stated first priorities in office are those with broad-based support...)
Insofar as Obama is making these appointments from a political standpoint, he's trying to establish a strong public consensus - not by looking for consensus choices but by getting a pretty broad range of ideologies working with him. It seems to be working, based on public approval, and more importantly it's probably helping him with what strikes me as the main feature of his nascent administration - it's designed for maximum efficacy. Gates is probably the single best equipped person to get things done at Defense, and Hillary is better suited to diplomatic work at State than she would have been as President (provided, that is, that you aren't one of those who think that she would take a position within an administration with the intent of taking down that administration.)
The big question from here, then, is the extent to which you believe Obama will be able to set the agenda. Most objections I've heard so far are from people that believe he'll just get run roughshod by those around him, but I tend to disagree - guy knows how to manage if nothing else.
Posted by Jon O. | December 4, 2008 2:40 PM