David Mizner's diary on the recommend list today lists out the substantive reasons that he believes should prevent Hillary Clinton from being Secretary of State.
Let me state first of all that on the issues, I agree with David and disagree with Hillary Clinton's positions on everything from Iraq to torture to the Kyl-Liberman Amendment. Those are all substantive and legitimate issues for disagreement. Let me also add that she's not my first choice for Secretary of State, although I have no problem with her and can see the positives she brings as well.
But it's the underlying premise of David's diary that I so strenuously disagree with, which he explained here:
Some of you will argue that it doesn't matter what Clinton believes; she'll simply be carrying out Obama's vision. But of course a Secretary of State helps to shape the policy, and can determine what issues are given priority. More to the point, Obama will look to her for advice. He's said he wants to be challenged by hs advisors. Wouldn't it be great to have someone who challenges him from the left and not the right?
No, it would be best for the country if Obama is challenged from all sides from all different perspectives from genuinely smart people who have the country's best interests at heart.
In fact, I'd take it a step further and say that it is essential that Obama IS challenged from the right.
Why? Because Obama is a liberal himself.
It's one of the reasons I supported him from the primaries. His foreign policy instincts have been right on since the beginning and I'm a strong supporter of the vision he articulated during the campaign. I certainly have every expectation that he will turn that vision into a reality and surround himself with the best of the brightest to help him implement his own decisions and judgments.
However, I think what David has wrong is what it means to be challenged by different positions. As a progressive, it would be great to surround our President with only progressives who agree with him on the fundamental issues. But ultimately, the country would suffer.
Why? Because no one, not one person, not one perspective, not anyone has the right answer 100% of the time.
Now, don't get me wrong. I happen to believe that the left side of the spectrum is right on these issues most of the time. But not 100% of the time in history. And while we've been largely right in the last 8 years opposing an extreme neo-con agenda, we cannot predict what issues will arise in the next 8 years.
I went to graduate school for business and in our leadership classes, one of the concepts they kept repeating was that great leaders should avoid the "Confirmation Bias."
What is the confirmation bias? Well, it's something we all have. We all have our instincts about what we should do. And no doubt, Obama has his instincts about what the right action is to take. The problem is, no one's instincts are right 100% of the time. But the confirmation bias says not only do we all have our own instincts, but human nature means we seek out evidence that confirms our pre-existing bias. Problem is, what if we're wrong?
The best leaders, therefore, seek out what is called "disconfirming evidence" - perspectives that specifically contradict the instinct the leader has to begin with. If the contradictory evidence is convincing and helps change our minds, then it saved us from making a bad decision.
If the evidence isn't compelling enough to make us switch our initial positions, then we can be more confident that we were right to begin with.
What we've seen under Bush is someone with a confirmation bias (that was mostly wrong to begin with) who surrounded himself with people who only gave him confirming evidence - which just re-assured his bad instincts and pushed him even further along his bad decision path.
The best leaders in history surround themselves with people of all different perspectives, right, left, and center, and specifically SEEK OUT different points of view.
Obama's instincts are to the left and they have been mostly right - but we don't know what's going to happen in the future and no one is right 100% of the time. By having advisers of all different perspectives, it will only help lead him to make better decisions more frequently. And then the advisers will have to implement HIS position.
There are legitimate reasons to be concerned about Hillary as SoS - too much drama? Can she be controlled? Bill? - etc, etc. But dismissing her because she has taken positions we disagree with and because we don't want to have senior advisers with positions we don't like is the wrong reason.
It's Obama who is President. It's his instinct we voted for. But his decisions will ultimately be better if he is surrounded by advisers from the left, center, AND the right (and, by the way, if Hillary Clinton is the most right-leaning of his senior advisers, then we really don't have that much to worry about).
Being challenged means being challenged from all sides. When I see Obama reaching out to advisers of different political persuasion - even when I disagree with them - it gives me even further confidence that he knows what it takes to be a great leader.