As I said in my introductory diary, one thing that we Australians find fascinating about the U.S. presidential system is that each new president chooses up the entire Executive branch, potentially, although not practically, from scratch. It's a very open system, which is very different from the Westminster way of doing things, but over the decades a set of conventions have grown up which compress the process and reduce it's value.
I got to thinking about how a change to those conventions could help the Democrats win the campaign and deliver a better government. The convention I'm proposing we challenge is the one that requires all the key positions in the incoming administration be chosen after the election, during the transition period. I'm suggesting we'd get better results if we started much earlier. Like now.
In Australia, cabinets are drawn from members of the legislative majority. Although Prime Ministers allocate portfolios, promotion to cabinet has generally required a person to build up support within the party caucus. The result of which is that in the lead up to an election it's pretty easy to guess who will be in cabinet after the election. This can be good in that, come election time, you are in effect voting for a team rather than just one person. It can also be bad because the team can tend to consist of the same old party hacks.
The U.S. system is a complete contrast. It gives the president enormous flexibility in choosing members of the executive branch. Whilst Senate oversight can twist the process it's still very fluid. Unfortunately, over the years, this very flexible system has grown a set of conventions which tend to constrain a president's options and reduce it's potential effectiveness.
One problem with the conventional executive selection process is that it has become limited by factional rivalry and overshadowed by short term, mean spirited campaign logic. There are a limited number of people with the right talents to fill positions at the top of the most powerful Executive in the history of the world. And yet, the campaign process takes that pool of talent and divides it up amongst 2 or 3 viable candidates on each side of the party divide as campaign staff, advisors and surrogates. The campaign then puts these groups of people through a 1-2 year process which teaches them to hate each other. So that, when a president is finally elected they end up choosing their executive from amongst 1/4 or even 1/6th of the available pool of talent. From a resource management perspective this process is, basically, nuts.
The other problem with the conventional process is that it all happens in such a compressed time frame during the transition period. This can cause, rushed decisions, fallbacks on old standbys (Donald Rumsfled anyone?) and generally poor choices. It also tends to lend credence to the poor practice of building West Wing staffs out of campaign staffs (George Stephanopolous as Communications Director comes to mind, amongst many others). Another problem with rushing the process during transition is that it leads to screw ups in vetting (Nannygate for example).
Now, of course, candidates do start to think about their West Wing staff and their cabinet well before election day. Particularly once they become the nominee of their party. But, it's usually in secret and it's very much subject to revision depending on what deals need to be done in the lead up to election day. I'm proposing that there are significant benefits to formally and publicly starting the process much earlier. This may be especially true for the Democrats in this cycle, and has extra relevance for Barrack Obama.
As the party (hopefully) returning to power the Democrats face criticism for lack of experience (even the candidates that have more than 4 years in the U.S. senate). One way to answer that criticism is to build up a credible, even impressive, set of presumptive Cabinet members and senior West Wing staff. Such a group would provide the depth and breadth needed to act as an alternative government in waiting, pre-vetted and ready to start work.
How could this work? It's going to take some agreement and it may have to wait until after the nominee is chosen. As I write the dust is still settling from the South Carolina debate so I don't know if Hillary and Obama are going to agree on anything for a while.
Leaving aside current spitball contests, the way the process could work is like this. As soon as there is a presumptive nominee (probably, well before the convention), that candidate and the DNC, would agree on a transition chairman. Someone eminent and trusted in the party and not too tied to any one candidate. Al Gore comes to mind. This kind of thing is very much his bag. Of course he's more of a single issue eminence these days, but still. This chairman would be given resources by the DNC to set up a recruit management and vetting service.
Once the transition chairman is in place and has resources the nominee could proceed to pass across names for consideration. The transition chairman would also be at liberty to suggest names to the nominee. Of course, the nominee would have veto over everything but, a channel through which the rest of the party, and others, could make suggestions would provide a way to persuade the nominee to consider consensus or even left field (as distinct from left wing) candidates.
By making the transition recruitment process a separate entity from the nominee's campaign we would remove some of the tendency to settle scores from the primary campaign. Staff members, advisors and surrogates from other campaigns would have a better chance at a fair hearing. By resourcing the transition chairman separately we would avoid handicapping the quality of the process, including, critically, the vetting process, with the uncertainities of campaign finances.
Once a candidate had been vetted by the transition chairman the nominee would have the option to publicly announce that person as their preferred candidate for an Executive position. After a few such announcements an Executive in waiting would start to take shape. This would quickly give the nominee's general election campaign more gravitas, a greater sense of purpose and an aura of readiness, which in these uncertain times, would be enormously appealing to voters. Especially if the GOP nominee is sticking to the traditional process of keeping all their cards under the table.
In the event that preferred candidates for White House Chief of Staff and cabinet positions did emerge they would then be able to work on finding names for lower level positions. All of which would mean that come the day after election day the president elect would have a set of pre-vetted, widely agreed, publicly known candidates that they could nominate immediately. Avoiding in the process the bad choices and vetting screw ups of the usual, rushed transition period.
I don't have the expertise to know if there are constitutional issues with such a process, or whether it would breach the Transition Act. But I'm guessing not. As I understand it, the President elect is at liberty to nominate whoever they choose. The process they use to build up their list before election day, and whether they choose to discuss their list with the public, is their own business.
So there you have it. A process for building an Executive in waiting that helps cast the net broadly, minimise the BS from the campaign pressure cooker, and provides a nominee with a well chosen team to offer to the electorate. Whilst the bulk of this would have to wait until a nominee is chosen, just the prospect of such a process would tend to make candidates, and the party as a whole, start the process of thinking about who they want in their Executive much earlier.
The challenges facing the next administration are so enormous that it's hard to get your head around them all. So much so that I do find myself wanting to ask the presidential candidates: "You're volunteering to take all this on? Are you nuts?". The combination of the historically inevitable global challenges of the 21st century with the grotesque failures of the Bush administration mean that the new administration will have to dig the nation (and the planet) out of multiple, deep holes all at once.
We are going to need the most talented, energetic, resourceful and credible Executive team in history. Choosing up that team is too important to leave in the hands of a campaign office, exhausted and still seething with the adrenaline and point scoring of a campaign, to carry out in a few short weeks after the election. A more considered, broadly based and much earlier process is needed. The next Executive will be playing for all of our marbles. Lets get it right and lets start today.