The Democratic Messaging Problem

I think one reason that Democrats have been fighting a losing battle in recent years is that they are losing the message wars. Sometimes they can win anyway if they are opposing a particularly odious Republican. But in the long run that’s not much to hang your hat on.

Here’s how I see it. The current Democratic message can be summarized as, “This country is rotten to the core and we aren’t going to put up with it anymore.” It is essentially a negative message.

Let me take a specific example. A key part of the Democrat’s Build Back Better legislation is a plan to make child care more available and more affordable. The argument is that this would free families, and especially women, to contribute both to their prosperity and to that of the nation as a whole. If that were how it is framed, I think it would be widely popular. And to the degree that this message gets across, it actually is popular. But Democratic spokespeople muddy the waters irretrievably by emphasizing the suffering of women who can’t afford child care, especially those on the low end of the economic spectrum,. So it becomes an issue of a thoughtless and uncaring nation that permits unnecessary suffering.

Do you see the difference? It’s not the good that we can do, but rather the evil that we can defeat. The greatest communicator in the Democratic pantheon was Franklin Delano Roosevelt. The genius of FDR was his skill at framing his message positively and in an optimistic manner that was both attractive and inoffensive, at least to those who were even slightly open to it.

Negative messaging can work if enough people believe it and feel the injury personally. But there’s a built-in issue. To accept it, most people have to own up to being part of the problem, and that depends upon far more introspective people than exist in our voting population. So even if the message has a grain of truth, the vast majority of people won’t accept it. Moreover they will likely react angrily to its implications.

This comes across as racism because of its current framework and the most visible proponents. But that is an over simplification. The message would also not be well received if it were framed as a political argument. That’s why communism never caught on here even in the Great Depression, when the flaws of capitalism were most evident.

The cure, of course, is both simple and impossible. Follow the guide of FDR during the Great Depression and the challenges of World War II. See a better future and show the way forward. Forget old grudges and naming enemies. Look up the ladder, not downward toward the morass you plan to escape. But, as I say, this won’t work. The geriatric leadership of the current Democratic Party are incapable of this complete reversal of their lifelong approach. In time they will pass the baton to a new generation – involuntarily if I am any judge – but whether these new spokespeople will see the flaw in their messaging remains an open question.

Our Perpetual Union – Or Is It?

I am reading a fascinating history of disunion of the United States called Break It Up by Richard Kreitner. It argues that our union was flawed and fragile from the beginning. Separatism has been a constant refrain, and even the original pact by the thirteen colonies was more to protect themselves from European adventurism than from a pressing desire to unite. Our first Constitution, ironically named The Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union, met considerable resistance due to fears of central authority, and its provisions reflected that reticence.

This book is a worthwhile read even if you disagree with the thesis or the supporting arguments. But in case you find this 497 page book too daunting, I offer instead this brief interview of the author by journalist Rebecca Onion published in Slate Magazine. I suspect that Kreitner reads too much of today’s problems into the past but he certainly gives many examples of separatist movements throughout our history. And this got me thinking.

Could we be at the beginning of a breakup? The first symptom in world historical terms is an ineffective central government. Does that ring any bells? There are many impediments to peaceful disunion, but that won’t matter if the desire really took hold. It’s not possible to hold the Union together by legal edict, as Lincoln certainly found. The states and the people they represent have to want to belong.  I could seriously see us resuming a confederation rather than a union, as the federal government becomes more and more useless due to lack of shared beliefs.

It’s easy to read too much into our current government crisis. But what if it’s real … and permanent? I don’t see the United States disintegrating, but rather reconstituting into something like its original form, which was a loose confederation of sovereign states that would likely form regional alliances. This might not be so bad really. It would smooth some friction points between groups that share few interests and ideals. The federal government could still manage national defense and international affairs though the function of the Supreme Court would be sharply curtailed. By mutual consent of the states, some other functions would likely still be centralized and voluntarily funded.

I haven’t really thought this out and it is clearly a complex issue. But we seem to have fractured in ways that make governance by mutual consent impractical. I don’t doubt that we could continue for a long time in this unhappy state of affairs, but why should we?

There have been times when we were as torn apart as possible – the Civil War – and conversely times when we were as united as our ideals portray – World War II. In the meantime there is constant low-level agitation for separation as disagreements simmer in our melting pot. At one time Congress was able to cement the cracks in our compact, albeit reluctantly. Now there seems neither the will nor even the intent to do this. And the growing populism movement has energized the discontented.

Our first confederation failed, largely because states were intransigent about relinquishing any significant authority, particularly with respect to the purse. I think we have the wisdom of experience to guide us in making it work this time. And working from a tight union to a loose confederation is intrinsically easier than the other way around.

If this did happen, some states would likely subdivide and/or unite in different forms. I can see several states that might split into northern and southern regions that are now fundamentally unalike. Examples are California, Florida, Illinois, and possibly New York too. Perhaps some regions would unite more closely in order to better manage their resources. It’s even possible that some major urban centers could take over their sovereignty, forming city states. That would certainly better serve their citizens if the details could be worked out. They would have to be able to provide sufficient services to their external partners to make up for their lack of resources. This worked well in medieval Italy for instance.

The largest problem, other than simple inertia, is economic viability. Some regions that might want autonomy actually couldn’t afford it! And there would likely be considerable turmoil in the beginning as some regions found that their desires for autonomy were unattainable.

But if this succeeded I suspect that it would inspire other countries with similar issues of separatism. There is certainly French and English Canada, the fractious United Kingdom, and of course the European Union that never really united in the first place. Then there’s most of Africa that is formed of countries with totally arbitrary borders defined by their colonial masters of the past.

I acknowledge that this is a very cursory analysis. No matter where one looks, daunting issues arise. Eliminating or limiting the primacy of federal law would have enormous implications. But don’t you think that force-fitting an unwanted commonality has been at the very root of our problems? Moreover, while the drums of separation are beating louder than ever, there remains a powerful, if nostalgic, desire for a United States of America. My point, really, is that there is no harm in taking a calm, objective look at the alternatives. Perhaps simply doing that might dampen unwarranted enthusiasm for a different approach.

A Portend of Times to Come

There is a great deal of talk about climate change and its consequences, but few have really confronted the beast, so to speak. The threat is so dire that we simply cannot contemplate it. As a Stephen King fan, I am titillated by dreadful threats to all we hold dear and think is permanent. But not all such tales are fiction!

The image below is what will happen to the United States. Not may happen – will happen — and relatively soon. The timing isn’t known exactly but previous estimates were around the end of this century. However it is definitely occurring far faster than predicted. We know that from multiple, high quality data samples, some of them coming from a NASA system that I helped design. This will be primarily due to the collapse of the Greenland ice sheet, but it will be amplified by similar events in the Antarctic. My guess is 20-30 years from now, but I wouldn’t be surprised at sooner.

Other places in the world will be hit far worse than us. Humans have had a predilection from time immemorial to build their great cities on ocean coastlines. It facilitates commerce and the views are delightful. So around the world, their lights will slowly blink out as the oceans engulf them.

So, what is being proposed here and in Europe? Use a lot of electric cars! This is ludicrous. It would be funny if it weren’t tragic. Electric boats would make more sense!

And all this is just due to ocean rise. There are worse consequences like insufficient potable water, extreme temperatures, loss of arable land, a witches brew of droughts and floods, plus catastrophic weather events beyond anything experienced since civilization evolved. And there will be the advance of tropical pandemics to heretofore temperate climes, and disruptive human migrations as refugees seek respite from local calamities. The Book of Revelations is a happy tale by comparison!

I believe that we will survive as a species, but our world will be unrecognizable. How’s that for the next Stephen King novel?

Some are comforted by the failure of past predictions of disaster, like those of Thomas Malthus, that failed to account for technology advance and human ingenuity. I wouldn’t totally discount that possible saving grace. But the odds are against it, way against it, and getting worse by the minute.

I see a parallel. Do you?

Two completely separate instances of dangerous social unrest now roil society at home and abroad. One is the confrontation between Israel and its indigenous Palestinian population and the other is the one between police and blacks in our country.

I see a commonality between these problems that is more than simply a power structure dealing with a recalcitrant and unhappy minority.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and her woke compatriots seem to see the bad things that Israeli Jews do to their Palestinian neighbors but not the evil and stupid things these Palestinians do to provoke this treatment. I’m not saying these are parallel aspects of the problem, because the power balance is grossly unequal, but it is a curious blindness nevertheless.

A similar issue exists with the Black Lives Matter movement at home. They see blacks disproportionately hurt by police but seem blind to the rampant petty criminality and resistance to apprehension that are the root causes of most such confrontations in the first place.

In both instances, the counteraction by those with power is often disproportionate. And in both cases I suspect that bigotry is one of the root causes. Nevertheless, no resolutions are likely unless one is clear-eyed about the total circumstances.

My guess is that neither of these cases arises from ignorance. Instead those with such views fear that recognizing provocations by those they support somehow diminishes the argument for redress. But I could be wrong. Advocates, by nature, seem to have a warped and highly selective vision. It is almost a defining characteristic.

One Country, One Man

Few people alive today remember that as late as WWII the U.S. was truly an association of states rather than a unified country. States and their citizens were different. They spoke and acted very differently. They had different laws and social practices. They ate different foods. Some regions still even had vestiges of their original independence or territorial identity. Mostly we spoke a common language but one that was sometimes barely mutually intelligible.

We traveled of course, but doing so was a major undertaking. This was before air travel became commonplace and travel by car was difficult, expensive, and time-consuming. Train travel was preferred but this was very limiting except between great metropolitan areas, and perhaps in the densely populated Northeast. And remember, this was also before national TV unified the country in other ways. Then President Eisenhower did something remarkable.

He created our interstate highway system. We now take these rapid transit features of our landscape for granted, but before the great highways were built, road travel was by the kind of country byways that still characterize remote parts of England for example. There was little enthusiasm and even less money for building passable roads between communities, for this was a purely local responsibility. The photo below actually shows one of the better examples of the time.

There were no guides, no guarantees of refueling or lodging on a lengthy trip, so people only did it if they were forced. This was even more so for Blacks, who faced real and even dangerous barriers when traveling outside their home areas. They even had a guide, called The Green Book, that told where and how to travel safely by car as though they were explorers in a wilderness. We are an immense country and the centuries of virtual isolation of different regions had imprinted itself, it seemed indelibly.

But the stroke of Eisenhower’s pen began, for the first time really, our amalgamation into a unified country. Real regional variations still remain of course, but not even remotely like they were before.

Dwight D. Eisenhower is rightly celebrated as a national hero for his successful prosecution of WWII in Europe and especially for the hazardous invasion of France that made that possible. But I think his most lasting legacy is the Federal Aid Highway Act of 1956. Great ribbons of well-maintained concrete now criss-cross our nation penetrating every region, allowing easy, unobstructed travel and commerce between communities everywhere. Our people give little thought to traveling hundreds or even thousands of miles on a vacation or even just a whim. The rise of commercial airline travel contributes of course, but it all started with the insights of a young Army officer crossing the country in a 1919 Motor Transport Corps convoy. Captain Eisenhower saw rutted, dusty gravel roads and knew it could be better. And we are all the beneficiaries of this man.

Key Non-Cabinet Posts

The Biden administration must staff key positions in addition to those required by law. I will discuss four in particular that involve great responsibility. This concludes my discussions and recommendations that began here.

Director of the National Economic Council

The NEC plays a crucial role in formulating economic policy and in coordinating the entire economic policy-making process within the administration. There are other agencies involved in this effort, but historically the NEC is vital in assuring worthwhile and realizable economic policies. The stark counterexample in the current White House illustrates just how important it is. The current Director, Larry Kudlow (“Kuddles” to his friends), has been wrong in so many areas that it almost seems to be deliberate. Could he be a foreign mole? I won’t waste time here documenting his failures. If you are interested, just look him up on Wikipedia. A Princeton dropout, recovering cocaine addict, and Fox talk-show host, Kudlow was an obvious match for the Trump team.

This makes Biden’s choice fairly easy if all he has to do is improve upon Kudlow’s dismal performance. But I hope he has loftier goals. My strong recommendation for this post is Eugene Sperling. He is a professional economist who has actually held this position twice before: over four years under President Clinton, and then another three years under President Obama.

Under Clinton, Sperling was a principal architect of the 1993 Deficit Reduction Act. Often disparaged by the Democratic left, this act and associated policies led directly to the best overall economic performance in modern times. Budget surpluses! My goodness, is that actually possible? In the 54-year period from FY 1965 to FY 2019, the Federal Government experienced a budget surplus in only five fiscal years. We had a modest surplus of $3.2 billion in FY 1969. Then in fiscal years 1998 through 2001, the government had surpluses of $69.2, $125.5, $236.2, and $128.2 billion respectively. These were the Sperling years.

Under Obama, Sperling first served as counselor to Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, providing key advice on budget and tax policies and on all of the myriad complications of the Affordable Care Act. Then as NEC Director, he was the White House point person on job creation, manufacturing policy, skills initiatives and patent reform. Among his numerous accomplishments was the design of the $447B American Jobs Act.

Environment Protection Administrator

Gov. Jay Inslee of Washington is the clear and almost certain choice for this position. During his short-lived Presidential run, Gov. Inslee essentially ran on one issue, climate change. As I have written before, this is the crucial issue of our times, notwithstanding the pandemic that is presently afflicting us.

Inslee was awarded a “Friend of the National Parks” award by the National Parks Conservation Association (NPCA) in 2001 for his support of legislation protecting the integrity and quality of the National Park System. And he was “one of Congress’s most ardent advocates of strong action to combat global warming,” according to The New York Times. He was the first public figure to propose an Apollo-like energy program and he co-authored Apollo’s Fire: Igniting America’s Clean Energy Economy, in which he argues that through improved federal policies the United States can wean itself off foreign oil and fossil fuel, create millions of green-collar jobs, and stop global warming.

Do you know of anyone with better credentials and a more heart-felt devotion to our environment?

United Nations Ambassador

This is not a policy-making position, though our representative must clearly and accurately present the diplomatic circumstances facing those in Foggy Bottom and the White House who must do so. Moreover the candidate must be able to present our policies forcefully and persuasively to a very diverse and often hostile audience. This is a difficult job, and in tense diplomatic times, is extremely important in preserving our alliances and our security.

Having appropriated an obvious choice, Susan Rice, for Secretary of State, I think this might be a good slot for Pete Buttigieg, who is articulate and a persuasive debater. I am fairly sure that Biden has committed to having Buttigieg serve in some role in his administration after his early and wholehearted endorsement, and this will give him needed breadth of experience.

Chief of Staff

This isn’t a constitutional position and it has only formally existed since the Truman administration. The only reason I include it is because it has assumed a crucial role as White House staff has grown in size and scope of responsibility under recent Presidents. Maintaining an orderly and structured flow of information, while managing the President’s time effectively, is now critical for an effective Presidency. A chastening counterexample is the chaotic White House of the Trump administration, where even insiders admit that disorganization is the rule and policy by midnight tweet is commonplace.

H.R. Haldeman, who was Richard Nixon’s Chief of Staff, suffered the ignominy of others in that administration’s downfall, but he had the job tagged exactly right when he called himself “the President’s son-of-a-bitch.” This requires someone who is a tough and disciplined manager and who is willing and able to stand as a gatekeeper to the Oval Office. For this to work, he must have the complete trust of his boss, the President. Trump has already cycled through four Chiefs of Staff before finally landing on Mark Meadows who actually might be well suited for the role.

The top candidate for this position is Steve Ricchetti. He served as Chief of Staff to Vice President Biden during the Obama administration and was Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations under President Bill Clinton. He knows the man and he knows the job. In addition, Ricchetti is highly attuned to Joe Biden’s political aspirations as chief planner of a possible run in 2016 and then chair of his campaign in 2020.

EPILOGUE

This concludes my shot at staffing a Biden administration. The current trend of this election no longer looks as promising for Biden, as his flaws receive scrutiny and as the radical left seems intent on sabotaging his candidacy. But he still maintains a slight lead and perhaps this blog posting might still have some relevance.

The Next Presidential Cabinet: Justice and HHS

These two departments have the unfortunate distinction of having the greatest impact on our everyday lives while being probably the worst managed under the Trump administration. A Biden administration must do far better. If you want to see my original post on the next Presidential cabinet, look here.

Attorney General

In a way, Trump has shown the path for a candidate for Attorney General. Find someone who is personally as different as possible from the current officeholder, Attorney General Barr. It isn’t that Barr doesn’t have the technical skills and necessary experience; it is that he is temperamentally unqualified. He seems to view himself as the President’s private attorney, so that his decisions are invariably heavily weighted toward satisfying his boss’s goals rather than impartial justice. Even one instance to the contrary might have changed my opinion a bit. This unfortunate situation is not unique to Trump or to Republican administrations. A somewhat similar example is Bobby Kennedy in JFK’s Democratic administration.

I think it best if the next AG be neither a personal friend of Joe Biden nor someone whose psyche is bound to the job. The AG must not only appear impartial, he must also act in a manner that inspires the same attitude throughout his department. The key is trust that every American is equal before the law, whether this pleases the current President or not.

I can think of two potential candidates and it’s really a toss-up between them. Both wear the honor badge of being fired by Trump. One is Preet Bharara. He was a distinguished U.S. District Attorney for the Southern District of New York until he was peremptorily fired along with many others for political reasons. His office is the largest in the nation It is famed for aggressive pursuit of public corruption and is our center for terrorism prosecution. Born in Punjab, India, his personal background is an amazing amalgam of Sikh (his father), Hindu (his mother) combined with his wife’s Muslim and Jewish heritage. Nothing better represents the immigrant experience of our country’s history.

The other candidate, and my personal favorite, is Sally Yates. She certainly knows the job, having served as Deputy Attorney General under the Obama administration. She was even briefly Acting Attorney General until Trump dismissed her for refusing to defend his executive order banning the admission of refugees and barring travel from a variety of Muslim countries. This was an unusual example of insubordination in defense of principle that is precisely the remedy we now need. Ms. Yates stint as Deputy AG is particularly significant. This required her to manage day-to-day operations of the massive department, giving her unequaled knowledge of its people and policies.

Secretary of Health and Human Services

Almost certainly, Joe will reach back for one of the many healthcare veterans from his stint in the Obama administration. The Affordable Care Act, aka Obamacare, was the signature domestic policy initiative of that time and many contributed to its design and enactment. This was always considered to be a stepping stone in the direction of universal coverage and it is likely that Biden’s team will work to strengthen Obamacare and further that long term goal.

There is Sylvia Burwell, who is a former HHS Secretary, Dr. Mandy Cohen, formerly chief operating officer at CMS (Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services), and Andy Slavitt, former Acting Administrator of CMS, just to name a few. The candidate resource is full to overflowing with knowledgeable and experienced health care administrators. It’s pointless for me to choose one.

The final post in this discussion will consider key non-cabinet positions.

The Next Presidential Cabinet: Education and Homeland Security

Continuing my prognostications for Biden’s cabinet, we have Education and Homeland Security. Given the state of affairs in our nation, these departments have more than usual importance. If you want to see my original post on the next Presidential cabinet, look here.

Secretary of Education

Ordinarily I wouldn’t classify this cabinet position as a key post. Education policy is normally planned and administered at the local or state level, quite properly so in my opinion. This doesn’t produce the uniformity and assured minimum performance so loved by central bureaucrats, and it is true that some students suffer accordingly. But the adverse consequences of central planning should be obvious to anyone who observes how it plays out in practice. Those close to the issues and attuned to local practices and wishes generally do a better job in this area.

But the federal government has a key role in filling funding shortfalls and in helping to manage the special issues arising from disasters like our current pandemic. Thus we now have a (hopefully) unique situation where the Education Department has a crucial role in managing this crisis.

Perhaps imprudently, Joe offhandedly promised to pick a “classroom teacher” for this job. I understand the impulse to have someone who can appreciate the consequences of Washington policy down in the trenches, but this is primarily a large-scale management job. On the other hand, we have had teachers leading this department before. There was Terrel Bell under President Reagan, Rod Page under President George W. Bush, and John King Jr. under President Obama. All did creditable jobs.

Let’s assume that Joe was serious. There are many teachers with broad management experience across the country, but one stands out in my mind: Eugene OR Superintendent of Education Gustavo Balderas.

Balderas is the child of migrant farm workers who rose to win a doctoral degree in educational leadership from the University of Oregon. Now heading the Eugene School District, he was recently named National Superintendent of the Year. He has run large districts in Texas and California as well as Oregon. He understands what works and why local control makes sense in our diverse nation. Most importantly, he is an experienced professional, not an outside advocate with an agenda like the current officeholder, Betsy DeVos.

My alternative may be surprising: Sen. Elizabeth Warren! Warren started her career as a public school teacher and then became a law school professor, working at several universities. Since joining the Senate, she has served on the committee that oversees education and has been an outspoken critic of the current Education Secretary and a leader in many areas including for-profit colleges and student debt. However, there is a special problem about employing Elizabeth Warren in any cabinet position. She is a sitting Senator whose Governor, Charlie Baker, is a Republican. Thus, as I pointed out in my preface to this topic, this might be counterproductive in winning control of the Senate. However, this must be weighed against the fact – and it is a fact – that Biden may be almost forced politically to offer some cabinet role to Warren, as the non-socialist face of the Democratic left.

I should add that there is considerable speculation in the news about choosing Warren as Secretary of the Treasury. I can understand the impulse for her many supporters on the left. She has a plan for everything and how better to accomplish them than with her hands directly on the purse strings. But what I do know is that this would send financial markets into a semi-permanent tizzy as she is uniformly reviled on Wall Street. That sort of “in your face” choice is inconsistent with Biden’s characteristically cautious approach to governing.

Secretary of Homeland Security

The list of challenges that a Biden administration will face relating to Homeland Security is daunting.

There is the core mission of intelligence gathering, with a prime focus on counter-terrorism and the ongoing challenges by nation-state adversaries. Principal among them are China, Russia, North Korea, and Iran. Cyber security is a growing and vital concern. Reforming and reorganizing activities related to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) will require immediate attention, particularly in light of past abuses. The whole area of foreign investment in vital technologies presents great challenges. And of course the most immediate and crucial issue is continuity of operations under the stresses of our current COVID-19 pandemic.

The scope of these issues can be seen by a Politico report that Biden has assembled a team of at least 1,000 national security experts working in 20 working groups. Its hard to see how any one man can man the tiller of this gigantic ship in such stormy weather. I think, rather than a policy expert, this needs someone who can grasp the big picture and keep his head in an emergency.

Past appointments to this recently created office have demonstrated that no one knows what qualifications are needed. Appointees have covered the spectrum of Governors, top military officers, lawyers, hack politicians, and career bureaucrats. I hate to admit it, but I am throwing up my hands on this selection. I don’t have a clue who could handle this job.

The next post in this discussion will consider the departments of Justice and Health & Human Services.

The Next Presidential Cabinet: Defense and Treasury

We continue with my predictions for another two critical departments. If you missed the original posting, you can find it here. A successful Biden administration will rely heavily upon their performance. The obstacles and trials they face are formidable.

Secretary of Defense

First, we should lay to rest an unfortunate experiment by Trump. His simple mind quickly ran to the idea of choosing a top General for this post, ignoring our long tradition of civilian control of the military. It’s not that the right General couldn’t do a great job. I have General George C. Marshall in mind, in particular. But he was one in a million. The position is far better held by a savvy, civilian administrator who understands both our history and posture in defense matters and who has no vested interest in professional military rivalries. His or her job will be to juggle priorities, allocate scarce resources frugally, and establish a good working relationship with Congressional oversight committees. This takes a consummate politician, with a clear grasp of potential threats to our security and a knowledge of the lessons of history.

There are quite a few plausible candidates for this position, but I think one stands head and shoulders above the others: Michele Flournoy. She was Undersecretary of Defense for Policy during the Clinton administration where she was in charge of strategy, plans, and counter-proliferation, with special emphasis on Russia, Ukraine, and Eurasian Affairs. At the time of her appointment she was the highest-ranking women in Pentagon history. She represented the DoD in dozens of Congressional hearings and is widely known and respected. Not incidentally, Ms. Flournoy was widely expected to get this role in a Hillary Clinton administration.

Ms. Flournoy co-founded the Center for a New American Security which is a Washington think tank that has assembled a team of experts from government, the military, and academia that is unequaled in its field. As head of the Pentagon, she would have a complete, broadly-experienced management team ready and waiting.

Secretary of the Treasury

The next Secretary of the Treasury will have to grasp firmly the reins of a devastated economy, with many millions of Americans suffering greatly. We are very slowly on the mend from the damage done by the pandemic, but I suspect that we will face many years of recovery. This is not a job I would wish on a friend. It will require not only an in-depth knowledge of financial affairs but also a flair for the details of management crucial to navigating these choppy seas.

I am going to stick my neck out on this one. I think that the current Chairman of the Federal Reserve, Jerome Powell, would be an outstanding choice. True, he is a Republican and he was selected for his current position by Donald Trump, which would be a black mark on most resumes. However he was initially nominated to the Fed by President Obama so crossing that line has happened before.

Powell is very knowledgeable about this department, having served there for several years under the George H.W. Bush administration, subsequently becoming Bush’s Under Secretary of the Treasury for Domestic Finance.

But my bottom line in this choice arises from my belief that resurrecting our economy from the combined disasters of Trump and COVID-19 will be job one for Treasury. Powell’s deft and aggressive actions as Fed Chairman in dealing with the monetary aspects of this problem, together with his frequent prescriptions for comparable fiscal solutions, bode well for the nation’s recovery in coming years under his management.

There was almost a precedent for this when Paul Volcker who, as Fed Chairman, had skillfully navigated the fiscal crisis under the Carter administration and was seriously considered for Treasury Secretary by President Obama.

The next post in this discussion will consider the departments of Education and Homeland Security.

The Next Presidential Cabinet

It’s time again to speculate on who might comprise the Presidential cabinet after the November election. I did this last time, and it was enjoyable though hardly a prognostication success. After all, not even Trump could tell you whom he likes from moment to moment.

Trump has boasted more than once that his cabinet is the best in history, the smartest of all time. I think it would be more accurate for him to have said that it is the best he knows about. Which is not much! Here is my “world standard” for a powerhouse cabinet: George Washington’s assembly of giants. There was John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, Alexander Hamilton, Edmund Randolph, and Henry Knox. Matching even one of them in the next cabinet would be a formidable challenge.

Now let’s see. For Trump? Hmm…who the hell cares? His cabinet choices so far have been mostly undistinguished. Except for a few isolated exceptions, most have been either incompetent or ass-kissers. Take your pick. That there are even some exceptions at all is but evidence that no one could whiff the ball every time unless he was trying to throw the game. Tell me one cabinet member who has been a strong, level-headed, independent and competent administrator whose advice Trump consistently takes. Some reasonably good choices were swiftly canned when they didn’t toe the line. Frankly I don’t give a damn whom he chooses if he manages to beat the odds and burden us all with a second term. It really won’t matter that much.

So, on to the interesting issue: Biden’s cabinet. I think his first priority will be to restore competence by choosing candidates with strong, relevant experience. Won’t that be a change? And I would be surprised if there were no registered Republicans in the mix because having at least one would set a tone of bipartisanship that has been sorely missing in the last four years. In fact, Biden floated this idea himself at a fund-raising event last April.

A surfeit of white males would be quite unexpected. Surely Joe would want his close advisors to represent our country’s diversity. However seeking to replicate our actual demographics would be a bad mistake that he is unlikely to make. He shouldn’t limit his choices unnecessarily.

Political concerns may not dominate his selections but they won’t be ignored either. It will be vitally important to a Biden administration to have an amenable Congress. We have seen what happens when this isn’t the case. In the past I have spoken favorably of a split Congress, where both sides of the political spectrum have a real say in governing the nation. But that only worked in the distant past when there were middle-of-the-road members in both parties who could affect compromises. To our real detriment, this is no longer true and I doubt that it will be in the next Congress. If Biden is elected I think a solid Democratic majority in the House is assured. That body reasonably represents the political thought in the nation as a whole. The Senate, however, is another story. Even though, by chance, this election will place more Republican senatorial seats at risk than usual, gaining a useful Democratic majority is by no means assured, even with a landslide election. Thus Biden must not imperil his chances in the Senate by extracting cabinet members for whom replacements would be selected by Republican Governors.

I won’t try to specify every cabinet member, but I will give my candidates for key positions and, if possible, select the best one. Also, I won’t consider the issue of Senate confirmation, which has become increasingly partisan in recent administrations. Earlier precedent was to defer to the President’s choices as his key advisors, but now confirmation hearings have degenerated into just a forum for expressing resentment and opposition. That may not change but it’s at least possible that the Senate may tip in Biden’s favor, thereby lessening this problem.

I don’t expect to score well with my predictions if, as I hope and expect, there is a Biden administration. There are too many factors other than competence and experience involved. For example, there is simple compatibility with the President on a personal level, and there are often essential political obligations to be met.

Before I begin, however, I have a personal observation. I think it might be smart for Biden to select and publicly reveal a few of his key cabinet choices. This isn’t normal practice and I do recognize that it would be a diversion of time and resources to make this happen. Moreover it would set these candidates up for political target practice during the election. But the contrast in quality between his picks and those of the Trump administration might make effective political advertisements.

Now, on to my choices. I won’t try to do them all in one blog entry. It would be enormous! So, I’ll do one or two per day until I finish. We’ll start with the most important position.

Secretary of State

This is an especially crucial cabinet position, particularly in light of Trump’s patent offensiveness to our friends abroad and his infatuation with the despots who despise and hate us. The nominee will have his or her hands full repairing the damage Trump has wrought. Thus proven diplomatic skill and established relationships in other countries will be particularly helpful.

The obvious candidate is almost certainly politically infeasible: ex-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. She carries too much baggage from her Presidential bid and her relationship with her husband’s administration. And I suspect she’s too smart to put her head on the block once again.

While we’re considering previous Secretaries of State, another clearly qualified candidate would be Condoleeza Rice, a Republican who served four years in the George W. Bush administration. She was even bandied about as a far-out VP choice for Biden by those whose imaginations ran wild. However, I have no reason to suspect she would be interested or that the Democratic insiders would accept a Republican as fourth in line of succession to the Presidency.

Thus, having flailed aimlessly on this choice so far, who is a realistic possibility? I think that Susan Rice clearly must be top of the list. Her credentials and experience in diplomatic affairs are extensive. In the Clinton administration, she served on the National Security Council and was the Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs. Then she served four years as United Nations Ambassador in the Obama Administration and subsequently another four years as National Security Adviser.

A Rhodes scholar among her other curriculum vitae, Ms. Rice has precisely the background Biden would want and they already have a close relationship from their years in the Obama administration. The fact that she is a woman of color is really incidental, but it certainly won’t hurt. Fallout from the infamous Benghazi Affair will no doubt dog her candidacy but I don’t think this is insurmountable.

The only other obvious choice is John Kerry, who served as Barack Obama’s Secretary of State, but at 77 years of age on inauguration day his age would be both a real and perceived impediment. On the other hand, his prior stint as Joe Biden’s successor as Chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee adds to his impressive credentials.

The next post in this discussion will consider the departments of Defense and the Treasury.