A Strong Cabinet
By Tom Barrett (12/07/04)
Recently I heard one of the female liberal talk show hosts on National Public Radio whining that Bush was appointing people to his second-term Cabinet that thought like he did. Who does she expect him to appoint: Hillary and Bill?
I would like to talk about the makeup of Bush’s new Cabinet, but first I would like to explore the negative spin the liberal media is putting on the number of “resignations” from Bush’s inner circle.
I put the word resignations in quotation marks, because any astute observer of the Washington scene knows that government officials at this level seldom resign; they are “resigned.” When the President decides to replace a Cabinet member or some other high-level official, unless they have committed some truly grievous transgression they are allowed to “resign.” This is right and it is respectful for the President to treat people who have been loyal to him in this way. But make no mistake. Although a few may have resigned for personal reasons, the majority of the individuals who resigned were asked to do so by the President or his Chief of Staff.
Why would the President make such changes? Simply put, this will be a very different term with very different goals, and he will need different people to accomplish these new goals. Also, there are some people whom I believe Bush has wanted to get rid of for some time, but was constrained from doing so by the exigencies of politics. Colin Powell comes immediately to mind.
Powell has been a thorn in the President’s side practically since he was appointed. By far the most liberal member of the Cabinet, he has defied his boss on numerous occasions by publicly expressing views that he knew to be contrary to those of the President. It is fine to present dissenting views in private, but a loyal Cabinet member never does what Powell has done. It makes our nation look foolish to the world when Cabinet members, particularly the Secretary of State, fail to present a united front. Powell has also stirred up trouble with other Cabinet members, particularly Donald Rumsfeld, on several occasions, and then showed further disloyalty by making the internal disputes public.
So why didn’t Bush dump him earlier? Powell is well-liked both here and abroad, and it would have been foolish of Bush to give the Democrats another reason to attack him prior to the election. But there was no doubt in my mind that Powell would be among the first to go once the election was decided.
The media has tried to make it seem that Bush has changed an unusually high number of Cabinet members. “His inner sanctum faces one of the biggest turnovers since Nixon,” moaned Linda Feldmann of the Christian Science Monitor. Really? The last two-term presidents we have had were Reagan and Clinton. Each had replaced seven of their Cabinet members at this point in their second term. Bush has replaced eight. But both Reagan and Clinton had done extensive Cabinet re-shuffling prior to their re-elections, so the total number of Cabinet members replaced by Bush is actually lower when this is taken into account. Also, don’t forget that there have been new Cabinet positions added since these two presidents served, making the percentage of Bush replacements even lower.
Another reason for some of the changes is that Bush made a basic miscalculation when he became President. He was a Governor heading for DC, and he appointed several other governors to his Cabinet, not understanding that Chief Executives do not often transition well into the subordinate administrative role required of Cabinet members.
An example of this is his replacement of Governor Tom Ridge with Bernard Kerik. Ridge was not particularly effective as the Director of Homeland Security, mostly because he had no job experience that would qualify him for the position. I don’t fault Bush for this decision. No one really knew what the new job would entail when Ridge was appointed. Now that the responsibilities and authority of the position have been clearly defined, I believe Kerik, who was responsible for the security of New York City for many years and is a consummate administrator, is an excellent choice.
Finally, the National Public Radio commentator mentioned above was most incensed with Bush’s nomination of Condoleeza Rice as Secretary of State. “She thinks like Bush,” was her shrill lament. What is wrong with that? Did NPR’s favorite president, Bill Clinton, appoint Cabinet members who had different goals and philosophies than he did? Of course not.
Rice will be an excellent Secretary of State BECAUSE she thinks like her boss. When she is negotiating with world leaders she won’t have to leave the room every five minutes to call Bush, because she knows how he thinks. She knows what he wants, and she is on the same page with him. She is a team player. The last thing Bush needs at this critical point in history is a Secretary of State with her own agenda.
On November 2, 2004, the people of the United States did not elect a single Cabinet member. They elected George W. Bush, told him they supported his goals and ideals, and, in effect, told him, “You’re the Boss. We just renewed your contract. Go find the right people to help you do your job.” That is why this will be a strong Cabinet which will serve our nation well.
(Printer friendly version) Email: Tom Barrett
