Should We Get Hot and Bothered By Obama's Personnel Choices?
The man giving the invocation at Obama's inauguration doesn't like gays, his pick for Secretary of Agriculture is a supporter...
The man giving the invocation at Obama's inauguration doesn't like gays, his pick for Secretary of Agriculture is a supporter of corn-based ethanol with only incipient reformist tendencies, his choice for Interior seems to have big fans in the oil and mining community, and his next Transportation Secretary is a Republican lacking any serious record on transit issues. In short, the trepidation that Obama's early cabinet picks triggered in parts of the left continues as he fills in the few remaining spots.
So should those of us on the left get all hot and bothered? There are three ways to think about Obama's frequently uninspiring and occasionally troubling appointments.
(1) These appointees are bad symbolism in the service of good policy. Because Obama is picking people who occupy the center, center-left, and center-right, he can count on the support of huge swaths of the people from all ideological backgrounds when he tries to push genuinely progressive policy initiatives.
Unfortunately, we simply cannot accept this as true. Not yet, anyway. We don't know that Obama wants to push genuinely progressive policy initiatives. There are reasons to suggest that he does, of course. But Democrats who take it as a matter of faith that Obama is tapping people like Warren to co-opt the right and get them behind him for when he passes wonderfully liberal policy are projecting their hopes onto Obama's future policy agenda. We don't know the policy yet. All we know is the symbolism.
Besides, Rahm Emmanuel puts the lie to this idea somewhat. Rahm isn't just willing to use bad symbolism in service of good policy. His career in the House leadership involved several episodes where he used bad policy in service of keeping Democrats in power.