Can't Get Enough Clinton!

This is a public response to my friend Robin's recent post, "Tired of the Clinton Phase."  I hope she doesn't feel ill-used by me taking this rumble public--wait a minute, she took it public.  Hey, what are you doing throwing my name around in your preface?  This would have been a perfect opportunity to do a Trackback, but her platform apparently doesn't accept TB's (either that, or you have to be signed in to access it and I haven't taken that plunge yet.)

As Obama's cabinet is starting to take shape, the Bloggerworld is lit up with opinions over how he's not creating a cabinet of change, how he's going establishment and a fair amount of fist-shaking over including a Clinton on his cabinet.  I'm actually fairly pleased with how things are going for some very specific reasons that will try to answer some of Robin's concerns.  Of course, if you're dead tired of Clintons, Clintons everywhere, I don't think I can do much about that.  But hopefully I'll be able to argue coherently why Obama is proceeding the way he is.

The biggest factor that is and should be directing some of Obama's choices is the two-fold crisis of being involved in two foreign wars and of being mired in a year-old recession with no clear evidence of a floor in the near future.  World markets are jittery (kind of like Honey-Bunny in the coffee shop robbery during Pulp Fiction) and are plummeting at the slightest excuse.  We could be pretty close to a Great Depression style bank run and we've certainly had a run on stocks and the credit markets are pretty well shot at the moment.  Yesterday, in response to the announcement that we've been in recession for the past year, the markets plunged again and that was in reaction to news that everyone's known.  Chicken Little is spreading the word and a number of people are listening.

I'd be the first person to say that we need to make some major adjustments to how we do business and how we regulate industry and I found the prospect of change under Obama's leadership a very attractive prospect.  I voted for Nader back in 2000 (inconsequential vote because I was in Texas) in order to send the message that we need systemic change, not just slight shifts of emphasis as we've had in past Democratic administrations.  Unfortunately, the types of wholesale change that I think we need won't happen all at once and in order for it to be sustainable, it has to occur step-by-step and it must be competent.  And in order for us to avoid some sort of global economic collapse, we have to manage changing things while reassuring folks that we know what we're doing. 

So here are the changes that I'm seeing from the start.  The biggest one is that we are getting competent, professional, pragmatic people in the cabinet rather than ideological stooges and yes-men.  That's my baseline--whoever's running things has to know what they're doing.  One of the things that almost doomed the Cuban Revolution was Che's handling of the economy.  Across the board, he removed competent management in nationalized industries and replaced them with line workers with no management or technical knowledge of how to run things.  They ran Cuban industry into the ground and this hastened the economic crisis that pushed Cuba to embrace the Soviets (an embrace that was made inevitable by the US stance toward the new government--Castro wasn't a communist until we pushed him into the Soviet sphere of influence).  Obama's no Che, he's a pragmatic man who wants to get things done and he thinks the best way to do that is to get the smartest and most accomplished people in the room onto his cabinet.

The other big change I'm seeing as he's naming his cabinet is his willingness to broaden the conversation in his cabinet--it will be a cabinet where multiple viewpoints are encouraged (required, actually).  From what I've read, this is how he ran things on the Harvard Law Review--he had a bunch of radical liberals and a bunch of Harvard conservatives and he picked their brains and managed their conflict so that he got the best out of both sides.  He put a lot of emphasis on this in his announcement yesterday.

The most important change I expect to see from the start of the Obama administration is one that can't be underestimated and is rooted in what I've said above--he's shooting to give Americans permission to trust their government again.  Reagan famously said in his first inaugural address, " In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem."  Reagan gave permission to Americans to hate their government, to see their government as the source of their problems rather than a friend with the occasional helping hand up or protector of the people we identify with the cop on the beat.  Obama wants to get American government back to the point where it is a partner with its people rather than an innocent bystander when people get screwed over.  If Obama picked a cabinet filled with fuzzy-brained idealists who didn't know how to run a government, he would provide the truth to the lie that the best thing we can expect from our government is to stay out of the way and allow The Market to do its thing.

But what about those Clintons?  Isn't it time to turn away from that particular chapter in our nation's history? 

I think I've noted before that one of the reasons I decided to vote for Obama rather than Clinton is because of the baggage she carried and part of that baggage is Clinton fatigue.  Is that fair to her as an individual?  Eh, probably not but like it or not she's part of the Clinton Machine that's been dominating the Democratic Party for the past fifteen years.  So why bring her on board, why bring the Clinton Drama into the Obama cabinet?

Because she's good and because she's a grinder.  There were times during the primary debates when Hillary's knowledge of the issues, the depth and breadth of her knowledge, almost turned me (but then she'd do something to remind me why I was voting Obama!).  I heard a quote yesterday from someone who said that for Hillary, there's no policy briefing book that's too thick to read every page, every word of and I believe it.  But not only is she knowledgable, she's strong--notice I said "she's strong" and not "she's a strong woman."  I think that by giving her the Secretary of State portfolio, Obama is giving her a field that she can really dominate in a postive way.  Just like she decided to become a military expert and worked like hell to take the "woman commander in chief" out of the primary conversation, I think she'll work her ass off to build relations with our foreign partners and find areas where we can cooperate with those who may not like us too well at the moment.  Hillary went from being viewed skeptically by the military to being a person they trusted to understand what they needed--if she does this with other nations as successfully, she'll go down in history as a great SOS.

But how could Obama choose an SOS who is so opposed to what he wants to do on any number of foreign policy issues?  Point of fact is that they're actually pretty close in terms of foreign policy.  The Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation has a nice little piece looking at their foreign policy positions and they're pretty close (Obama and Clinton:  More Agreement than Disagreement on Foreign Policy):

President-elect Barack Obama announced today that he will nominate Senator Hillary Clinton (D-NY) to be Secretary of State. Selecting a former rival for the most prestigious of cabinet positions has unleashed a torrent of media coverage, most of which has focused on grossly exaggerated disagreements during the presidential campaign and behind-the-scenes political maneuvering.

This reporting misses the point. As Lt. General Robert Gard, chairman of the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation, wrote recently, “It’s not Hillary, it’s the policy stupid!” Reporters tend to exaggerate conflict because it makes for more interesting copy. The fact is, however, that when it comes to foreign policy, Obama and Clinton agree far more than they disagree.

If you want new ideas in the foreign policy area, look to Susan Rice, Obama's pick for our UN representative, which he is raising back to a cabinet level position.  But mainly look to Obama and his emphasis on restoring US "soft power" in foreign affairs, our ability to use tools other than the military to influence global events.

I'm not a huge fan of Bill Clinton's presidency--he was a self-described "triangulator" who attempted to split the difference way too often with the right.  His administration's support of the deregulation pushed by Phil Gramm and lack of support for regulation of credit default swaps are examples of his failure to lead that contributed to our current economic crisis.  All that being said, he was very good at building a long period of economic stability and he turned budget deficits into budget surpluses by the end of this second term (Bill Clinton's Economic Legacy--BBC).  Of course, the Bush Administration promptly squandered the surplus by cutting taxes during a time of increased spending but that doesn't change the fact that Clinton did have his areas of success.

There is always a tug of war between the status quo and change that limits how quickly you can transform government.  And you have to have elements of continuity and institutional memory to make sure that government continues to function.  Obama is above all a pragmatist and despite his rhetoric, he can be an incredibly cautious person.  He wasn't called No Drama Obama throughout the campaign for nothing.  I think during his first year in office we can see the sort of professionalizing of government service that will help to rehab our view of the federal government and that his foreign policy team will do similar things for our reputation in foreign countries.  From who he's picked and what he's said, I think that he will move aggressively to make health care access universal in the US, he will work to create a cap and trade system, he will sign on to Kyoto and take global warming seriously and he will begin to return the government to its proper role as a protector of civil rights rather than a violator of those rights.  That's all change I believe in, change that won't happen overnight but change that is much more likely to happen because he's picking a competent cabinet that is able to get things done. 

Comments

[Robin]

i am not quite techie enough to know what "trackback" is but i'm sure it would have served its purpose here. lol i wasnt necessarily calling you out or anything - though now that you mention it, i guess you did ask not to discuss it again. woops. it's actually nice to have one thing to disagree on, tho i suspect given time, we'll discover others.

so as i said, i really do hope she changes my opinion of her. it's interesting to me how all loyal dems (esp those, like you, who wouldnt have voted for her over obama) are now patting the prez-elect for his wise, if not intriguing, choice. knowledge is power right, and i would never try to state that she isnt knowledgeable. there is certainly this characteristic knowledge-hunger about her that i do admire in some ways. she is that roll up your sleeves and do the work kind of politician people like gov palin claim to, but only wish they could, be. so for everything palin is not, (smart for starters) ms clinton is. she has that going for her. that doesnt say much though.

otoh, the experience angle is irony. in some ways i see it as, yeah, we've been around long enough to recognize what utter sh** we have put our country through and now we'd like a shot at correcting it. hey i'm all for wiping your own sh**. in fact, i encourage it. i'm just not hearing anything new and find it hard to swallow that these same people are going to come up with good ideas some time between now and jan 21. god help us all.

which reminds me, DC hotels are $250 a night!!! we currently have 3 people splitting it and i have the feeling i will end up sleeping in the bathtub. haha. but it will be epic! i'll send you pics =o)

[amy]

Maddow had Madeleine Albright on to talk about the Hilary pick a little while ago, and she (Albright) had very complimentary things to say about Clinton's interest in and involvement in foreign policy when she was First Lady. Of course that's hardly surprising, but she did provide some interesting detail as well. Here's a youtube link (I know you don't want to pollute your thinking, so I won't be offended if you don't follow it): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p1AGdvReKnU