Graphic: New York Times
The results of the November election haven’t even been counted yet–at least in my state where the comedian and the chameleon are less than 300 votes apart in a tense recount–and the Democrats are already at it again. The chief source of frustration stems from what many view as the so-called “centrist” cabinet of Barack Obama. If anyone can explain to me how one recognizes this exotic beast called a centrist, please have at it.
This in turn has made Doris Kearns Goodwin probably both very happy and frustrated, for the title of her best-seller (a brilliant one, BTW) is now being liberally (pun intended) applied to analyzing the composition of the Obama cabinet-in-waiting. As is often the case with the mainstream media and not a few bloggers, Goodwin’s rather complex analysis has turned into a buzz word and a simplistic formula. As Goodwin points out over and over, Lincoln’s cabinet was a unique group lead by one of America’s most notable transformational leaders during a time when this nation came perilously close to reaching a political and cultural critical mass that could have generated the national equivalent of a mushroom cloud.
Any historian worth the name can cite teams of rivals in every Democratic administration–Wilson, FDR, Truman, JFK. And now Obama. It seems to me that many of the rants about Obama’s choices stem from some questionable assumptions. The first is what IS a liberal? Critics assert Obama has no liberals in his administration, but is that true. The second stems from the already-mentioned misreading of Goodwin’s book which details the complexities of transformational leadership in a way that makes it one of the few books to live up to its hype. The third stems from a misunderstanding or even lack of knowledge about transformational leadership, Finally, I don’t know how else to put this, but there is a subtle undercurrent of racism in all this reminiscent of when African Americans ascended to leadership posts during Reconstruction.
What IS a Liberal?
For years now I have been only mildly successful in arguing that a liberal is someone who believes one reason government exists is to keep the playing field level. In this sense, someone who believes in saving whales and redwoods may have a worthy cause, but that does not make them a liberal. Nor is someone who supports gun control or wants to cut the defense budget or any of dozens of causes that have been pinned with the label of liberal by Republicans who have half-succeeded in turning the word into a political equivalent of a four-letter epithet by associating it with causes that have nothing to do with liberalism.
So if you grant me the liberty of accepting my definition, if only for purposes of argument, how many Obama appointees are liberals? The easiest way to weed out the non liberals is to identify people like members of the Democratic Leadership Council, those who helped to scuttle Glass-Steagall mouthing the GOP’s free markets philosophy and other inequality types of whom there still are some in high leadership positions in the Democratic Party (Nancy Pelosi this means you with your vineyards, real estate manipulations and self-serving bailout of AIG).
The Cabinet So Far
So where does the Obama cabinet lie? Here are the nominees so far:
Attorney General: Eric Holder
Commerce: Bill Richardson
Defense: Robert Gates
Homeland Security: Janet Napolitano
State: Hillary Clinton
Treasury: Timothy Geithner
Frankly the only ones on this list who give me heartburn are Gates and Geithner. I’m not sure it sends a forceful message about Iraq when Obama reappoints George Bush’s Defense Secretary. As for Geithner he is a Rubinista and already is causing trouble by starting a feud with FDIC head Sheila Bair–the person who would have been a much better appointment. Geithner, who was supposed to be mellow, threw the ultimate Washington insult at Bair and in so doing already has violated his boss’s no leak policy. Geithner let two of his subordinates stick in the knife according to reports:
Geithner, president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, has argued Bair isn’t a team player and is too focused on protecting her agency rather than the financial system as a whole, according to two congressional officials and a person familiar with his thinking.
The interesting question is whether one of those Congressional officials is one Nancy Pelosi, since one of the banks Bair is managing is in her home state. What is it that Bair has done to raise a ruckus this early? She has had the temerity to question the bailouts for Citigroup that Geithner supports. I will predict that if he is confirmed–and his confirmation could be precisely over Bair and Citi–he will become an instant lightning rod.
Naming Clinton to state may be Obama’s most brilliant move so far, but not because of the Team of Rivals explanation. For many liberals one of the biggest black marks on Clinton’s record is her vote in favor of the Iraq War. Clinton is clearly motivated to clear up this black mark and so will be motivated to seek a settlement to the war, which if she can pull it off will assure her recognition as a peace-maker. Clinton also has the international economic ties to help deal with the global implications of the economic crisis. Finally, for all that liberals say about her middle-of-the-road politics, she is well-known throughout the world for her support of human rights issues such as gender equity.
What is interesting is that Obama has yet to make several key appointments that will have immense implications for liberals, including Education, Labor and one that for some reason many people do not pay attention to even though it may be one of the most important positions in the administration–FCC Commissioner. To tar this cabinet with any brush at this stage of the game seems a bit ridiculous, but people feel a compulsion to engage in criticism before the game is over.
One other fact needs to be noted about the Obama Cabinet: I have not heard anyone say these are not good people for their jobs. The competency level here is extremely high, certainly higher than the previous cabinet. Could it be that Obama has chosen people as much for their abilities as for their ideology?
The Shadow Cabinet
Having said this brings up another problem with the Obama bashers–they are focusing too much on the high profile appointments while ignoring the rest of the President-elect’s team. Some of these are true eye-openers. For example, one of Obama’s chief advisors has called for reviving Franklin Roosevelt’s Economic Bill of Rights.
Finally all these arguments conveniently ignore a person who will play a central role in the Obama Administration: Michelle Obama, who has the potential to become another Eleanor Roosevelt. Like ER, her liberal credentials are impeccable and unlike ER, who at times found herself at odds with her husband, Michelle Obama appears to be on the same wave length with the President.
Team of Rivals?
Frankly Doris Kearns Goodwin must be both smiling and crying about how her book has been misused. Abraham Lincoln entered the White House with the least experience of virtually any other President. He needed people around him who knew Washington, who had been active on the international scene and who represented key factions and stakeholders. Not having them at the table would have been disastrous. Frankly he also needed to neutralize a few rivals, most notably Salmon Chase, one of the more odious characters in American history, one who easily could have become another Burr had he half Burr’s brains.
Obama also needs experienced hands and like it or not, the major place to find them is former Clinton Administration officials. To name one example, to me Obama’s choice of Hillary Clinton is a masterful one on two counts: she is undoubtedly qualified to become Secretary of State and could make a great one; second, it brings his main opposition into the tent instead of leaving it outside to work mischief. Finally it signals Obama’s intent to reconcile disparate elements of the Democratic Party much as Woodrow Wilson did in 1912.
Transformational Leadership
It is too early in the game yet to see Obama as a transformational leader. Proof of that will come with his actions. Still, as James MacGregor Burns and others point out transformational leadership is about values. Values are not ideology, they are not programs or policy, they are the stuff from which programs and policies are made.
In his various speeches the values threads that run through the words of Barack Obama are stitched firmly to long-time Democratic Party and liberal values. The two most important are the level playing field and bottom-up not top-down. You can find those values in speeches by Wilson, FDR, Truman, and Kennedy, among others. Obama has mentioned these values enough that we need to take him at his word and not see them as mere campaign rhetoric. They are part of who he is.
The dynamics of transformational leadership have been described in great detail by Burns, Bernard Bass and others. Bass boils them down to four qualities: idealized influence, inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation and individualized consideration.
Bass wrote about “The Ethics of Transformational Leadership:
Leaders are truly transformational when they increase awareness of what is right, good, important, and beautiful, when they help to elevate followers’ needs for achievement and self-actualization, when they foster in followers higher moral maturity, and when they move followers to go beyond their self-interests for the good of their group, organization, or society.
Although Goodwin cites none of this in her book, it is plain that Lincoln utilized all of Bass’ four dimensions to govern. In addition we seem to have forgotten that Barack Obama has assembled what ranks as one of the most formidable grass-roots organizations in American history. This gives him the ability to call on these millions of supporters to help sway legislation–and also to exert pressure on his own cabinet and Party–that is reminiscent of the strategy Ronald Reagan used to employ when he needed a bill passed: go to the people. Barack Obama knows he not only needs to be true to this power base but to continue to develop it, for if he loses them he will be a one-term President.
Race
This leads to the final dimension of the whining. Implicit in some criticisms is that somehow an African American cannot manage a team of disparate members. Hidden beneath the surface as it is, this may prove to be the most difficult hurdle facing Obama. Yet while this man has strong beliefs and convictions, this man appears to have none of the ego issues that deviled both Bill Clinton and George Bush.
One hallmark of a transformational leader is that she or he cares more about values than themselves. At the moment as people are running all about crying the sky is falling, Barack Obama exudes a kind of level-headed confidence reminiscent of Franklin Roosevelt in 1932.
The Final Judgment
Before we start to point fingers and positing scenarios, we need to give this man a chance. Quarterbacking from a living room recliner gets us nowhere.
Finally I need to add something else Barack Obama shares with transformational leaders–a capacity for growth, which was perhaps Lincoln’s strongest quality. Obama’s recent press conferences are a testimony to that. Already he sounds more Presidential than the current President, but then we know that is not setting the bar very high. Yet in the midst of this economic crisis, Barack Obama’s calmness and the methodical way he seems to be managing the transition should inspire confidence not brick-throwing.
Print Posted by: liberalamerican
