November 22, 2004
Echo Chamber?
Much has been made - in conservative circles as well as liberal - of Bush surrounding himself with loyalists in his second term. More than partisanship is at stake; all Americans agree that the government should be well-managed and that decisions should be made well. Is the second Bush administration becoming a dangerous ‘echo chamber’, as some claim?
The two notable replacements in the cabinet - Rice at State, Gonzales at Justice - are close associates of Bush. Lower-profile nominees - Spellings at Education, Miers at White House Counsel - are also old friends. However, before throwing up red flags, we should look at Bush's decision-making style and his own logic behind nominations he knows may be unpopular. Bush is generally characterized as a delegator. He gives subordinates broad authority to make decisions, and has little interest in the details that inform each decision. This has its strengths: expert subordinates can often make better, less political decisions than can a generalist president. It also has weaknesses: inept or out-of-step subordinates can really hurt an administration.
Bush, I think, is attempting to address what he saw as weaknesses in his cabinet. Powell, of course, is a brilliant diplomat, but his star power and differences with the post-9/11 philosophy of the administration made him both unhappy and unwanted. Rod Paige and John Ashcroft were both right-wingers who hurt the administration on a few occasions.
The new voices will not disagree as vocally with the President as Powell or Ashcroft did, but Rice (the only known quantity) has been known to disagree with others in the cabinet. The administration may in fact become more effective with the new faces if the cabinet can be characterized by professional debate rather than ideological infighting.
We will not know how effective the new cabinet is for a few months at least. However, we should treat this cabinet as innocent until proven guilty. Bush values loyalty, but he also values competence, and (with the exception of State), we can reasonably expect each new cabinet-level appointment to be an upgrade in management ability.
In addition to this brief essay, allow me to add two post-scripts. First is a personal disclaimer: I think Colin Powell is the best American diplomat since Franklin Roosevelt, in philosophy as well as abilities. Rumsfeld is stuck in the 1940's (look at his hairdo), and Wolfowitz is downright scary; their War in Iraq represents a victory of ideology over reality.
Second is a positive note on the makeup of Team Bush. When female and non-white cabinet members were introduced in the last few administrations, there was usually an unspoken aura of affirmative action. Rod Paige, for instance, seemed to be chosen for his race as much (or more) than anything else. However, in this new Bush shake-up, we're seeing an old-boy network that is made up of both genders and multiple races. The fact that the President's inner circle includes people with last names like "Gonzales" and first names like "Karen" is a sign of just how far America has come after 200 years of waspy males.
Posted by Chops at November 22, 2004 01:21 PMChops
Good article. I was trying to think of a comment, but you seem to have covered everything.
All I can add is something from today paper (I can’t remember the author and I am paraphrasing) After the disasters of Christopher and Albright, Powell made the State Department feel good again. Maybe Rice can make it feel important, since everybody knows that she will speak for the President.
Chops:
Excellent article. You see the cloud AND the silver lining. I’m not sure Rumsfeld is as bad as you make him out to be, though I tend to agree that Wolfowitz is a bit scary.
I liked your point about intellectual debate versus political infighting—-I hope it works that way.
I wonder what Powell will do to keep himself busy and in the loop, if anything. Seems to me now that he is leaving, there is a love fest surrounding him. While in the office, those on the left liked him for what he thought, but savaged him for his inability to change things, while those on the right savaged him for his thoughts. Interesting how time changes perceptions, aint it.
Posted by: joebagodonuts at November 22, 2004 03:58 PMRe. Powell’s future… that’s going to be interesting indeed. I have no idea whether he has ambition. I could see him as the presidential or vice-presidential nominee of either party in 2008, or the secretary of state for a Democrat in ‘08.
If he’s feeling old and tired, he might settle down at Columbia or Stanford and hit the lecture circuit, raking in small millions for big bucks. If he’s feeling feisty and pissed off at the world, he might go all Carter on us and take charge of some humanitarian organization. If he’s feeling ambitious, he might run for Senate or something, or get ready for a presidential run in ‘08.
Posted by: Chops at November 22, 2004 04:19 PMWe need more Republicans, let’s grab the majority!
Join a Political Simulation Community
Come Join “America Votes”! Here you can run for Senate, House or the Presidency, engage with your party, write and pass legislation, elect party chairs and party leadership, discuss in detail foriegn, economic and social policy, and have a lot of fun in the process.
Posted by: Seth Wellbourne at November 22, 2004 06:17 PMChops,
This is my first time writing on the “other” blog. I thank you for your fairly moderate assimilation of this new Bush team. I am fairly interested in what both sides think this new Bush team will be like.
I can only hope that they do strike a somewhat more consiliatory tone with the other side. I’m, of course, not advocating that Republicans try to compromise with the democrats; that would be asking too much from either side. However, a more moderate Bush administration this time around would do wonders to improving the legacy Bush leaves in four years (at least it will improve his legacy with the 56 million Americans who really didn’t wan’t him to be president; most, not all, of the Bush supporters already think he is great).
I wish my post had more content, but like jbod I think you did a fairly good, nonpartisan analysis here.
Posted by: Chops at November 22, 2004 07:29 PMPowell is done with politics. He’s too moderate on social issues to receive consideration as a Republican candidate. Would he switch parties? Doubtful. And while I used to hold him in high regard- yes, would even have considered voting for him on a Republican slate- the disgraceful performance at the UN tarnished his career beyond repair. The appalling spectacle of him lying to the world about Iraq- remember, those weren’t allegations, those weren’t suspicions, they were presented as evidence, as facts- that performance demeaned Powell, as well as our country. In a way, I’m surprised Powell’s stepping down receives a second glance; he signaled his intentions to leave for some time. Too bad, too bad. I liked Powell, in a way still do. But he knew Iraq was a mistake, and went along out of loyalty to the team. What a shameful way to be remembered by the world, as a good man who publicly supported the presentation of an awful, colossal lie.
Condi at State? I’m sure we can count on her to be loyal to Bush. I’m sure she’ll do just as well at State as she did in her previous position. What a fine performance! Let’s look at the highlights:
9/11
Reactive foreign policy: a ‘War on Terror.’ Whoops! After the capture of Khalid Mohammed and the shutdown of three US cells, individual terrorist targets become few & far between, with the notable exception of OBL. Now what?
Pre-emptive war doctrine resulting in invasion of Iraq. Nice.
In strategic terms:
1) most allies alienated.
2) US on the verge of Crusade against Sunni Islam, and Sunni Islam on the verge of Jihad again the US
3) US appears to have lost goodwill abroad in the wake of 9/11, to become popularly despised by majorities of ‘The Core.’
Fine work, Condi! Can’t wait to see what wonders will be worked at State! Sure is loyal.
To be fair, she didn’t come up with any ideas of her own. She just reacted and went with the crowd, hit the talking head circuit & dutifully repeated the line of administration lies about Iraq.
Posted by: Phx8 at November 22, 2004 07:49 PMBush is staffing his cabinet with yesmen (gender inclusive). I would think these people will tell Bush what he wants to here and we all will suffer for it.
Posted by: Rocky at November 22, 2004 09:30 PMChops, one notable absence from your very good article is the fact that many of Bush’s appointments are going to some of his best fund raisers. Does fund raising make for expertise in Government affairs?
Posted by: David R. Remer at November 22, 2004 11:18 PMI think you guys are too Negative on George Jr.. think of the Racial Diversity he has brought into the White House!!!
Alberto Gonzalez - The first Latino Attorney General who think torture is legal.
Condelezza Rice - The first female African American Sec. of State who had trouble governing her 100-man NSC.
Aldous.
Posted by: Aldous at November 23, 2004 08:00 AMSo is this how you people think an organization should be run? The CEO should intentionally surround him/herself with people whose ideas of how to run the organization are completely different from his/her own?
Give me a break. Transparent partisanship everywhere. Could you imagine any corporate CEO following your advice? Your Bush-bashing defies logic.
Posted by: Bryan Williams at November 23, 2004 10:26 AMBryan, you conflate two things which should be considered separately: The advisor’s willingness to disagree with the President, and their factional opposition to him.
An official in Kennedy’s administration made the analysis that Khruschev would be willing to capitulate on the Cuban Missile Crisis if he could take back a non-invasion pledge. the Kennedys disagreed. The advisor stuck to this guns. Sure enough, that deal was part of the peace that prevented WWIII.
Nobody is wise enough to think of all solutions, all the right angles. We need advisors who can function independently of their president’s promptings and prejudices.
Trouble is, the Republicans value loyalty to agenda and cause more than loyalty to practicality and feasibility. They want to be told what they want to hear. As long as that’s the case, the Republican party as a whole, and any president in the mainstream of Republican culture will be a victim of the echo chamber.
The ability to disagree is not equal to the tendency to be adversarial.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 23, 2004 12:49 PMBryan,
“So is this how you people think an organization should be run? The CEO should intentionally surround him/herself with people whose ideas of how to run the organization are completely different from his/her own?”
First off this country is not a corporation and it shouldn’t be run like one. We have all seen what happened with Enron.
Secondly, even if it was why would a CEO surround Him/Herself with people that would only tell him what he wants to hear?
Bush is myopic enough with out a group of sycophants feeding him only what he wants to hear.
Chops, This is my first time writing on the “other” blog. I thank you for your fairly moderate assimilation of this new Bush team. I am fairly interested in what both sides think this new Bush team will be like. I can only hope that they do strike a somewhat more consiliatory tone with the other side. I’m, of course, not advocating that Republicans try to compromise with the democrats; that would be asking too much from either side. However, a more moderate Bush administration this time around would do wonders to improving the legacy Bush leaves in four years (at least it will improve his legacy with the 56 million Americans who really didn’t wan’t him to be president; most, not all, of the Bush supporters already think he is great). I wish my post had more content, but like jbod I think you did a fairly good, nonpartisan analysis here.
Sorry Chops I inadvertantly stole your name…
my fault!
Nick - No problem
Stephen - As much as Bryan may have “conflated” disagreement from partisanship, you are conflating public confrontation with private disagreement.
From every indication, the Bush cabinet has been just as lively and rancourous as any. A good leader should take his advisors varying viewpoints, make a final decision, and then require all advisors to give the party line in public. This is standard practice for any organization at any level. Powell usually followed the party line, but his (and others’) occasional public disagreements were a rift above and beyond the disagreement necessary for good decision-making.
I’m certainly not saying that the new Bush cabinet will be great; only that it deserves a chance. To address David’s point, we don’t know yet whether some of these people will be effective public administrators. I am merely arguing that there are no problems YET. If they arise later, they should be dealt with, but the makeup of the cabinet is not in itself a problem.
Posted by: Chops at November 23, 2004 04:30 PMInteresting… that’s good info to know.
Posted by: Baxter at November 24, 2004 07:46 PMChops,
Very good first effort!
If I had to say something non-partisan and positive about Bush’s nominees, it is his clear confidence and familiarity with them, and in turn, their experience with his management style. I am further not surprised that this reflects an effort to consolidate power within the White House.
But, what it signals to me is that the administration has adopted a bunker mentality, preparing for very rough seas ahead.
This is however, not the actions of an administration that painted such a rosy picture of Iraq (‘an unqualified success’) and the economy (‘turning the corner’). This reflects a ship’s commander making sure every leak this time is plugged, and stocking a crew with those he knows are not ‘mutiny prone’.
As it has been proven repeatedly, as long as they have an intimidated and pliable media, and are in strict control of the ‘message’ - and not being undermined by their own - they have a better than even chance of weathering any storm.
Posted by: Bert M. Caradine at November 25, 2004 12:36 AMwhen he decided he was not ready to retire. cross The company has grown substantially over the cross past few years and is a family owned and operated tattoo company. The family centric focus is passed jerusalem on to every product the company makes. The bible guy is a former marketing executive from Laycos, christ where he was one of the prime movers in creating holly
Posted by: jesus at December 3, 2004 08:44 AM
