Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

What’s So Special About a Team of Rivals?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-22-08 02:43 PM
Original message
What’s So Special About a Team of Rivals?

What’s So Special About a Team of Rivals?

By JAMES OAKES
Published: November 19, 2008

INSPIRED by the wisdom of Abraham Lincoln, President-elect Barack Obama is considering appointing a “team of rivals” to his cabinet — if rumors about the nomination of Hillary Clinton to be secretary of state are true. But there’s more mythology than history in the idea that Lincoln showed exceptional political skill in offering cabinet positions to the men he had beaten in the race for the 1860 Republican nomination.

For one thing, there was nothing new in what Lincoln did. By tradition, presidents-elect reserved a cabinet position, often secretary of state, for the leading rival in their party. John Quincy Adams inaugurated the practice by appointing one of his presidential rivals, Henry Clay, to that post. It was a controversial move in 1824; enemies of Adams denounced the appointment as a corrupt bargain.

By the 1850s, the practice had become a tradition. In that decade, Presidents Millard Fillmore, Franklin Pierce and James Buchanan installed in their cabinets men who had been major rivals for their party’s nomination. Daniel Webster, who lost the Whig Party nod in 1848, became Fillmore’s secretary of state. William Marcy, after failing to win the 1852 Democratic nomination, took the same position in Pierce’s cabinet. Lewis Cass, the Democratic nominee in 1848 and a man whose presidential dreams never diminished, was appointed Buchanan’s secretary of state in 1857. These were not notably successful administrations. Most historians agree that Pierce and Buchanan rank among the worst presidents in American history. There was nothing particularly unusual, or even impressive, when Lincoln followed this well-established practice.

Nor is it quite correct to say that Lincoln installed his “enemies” in the cabinet. Rivals for his own party’s nomination are not the same thing as political “enemies.” It would have been inconceivable, for example, for Lincoln to offer a cabinet appointment to his Democratic opponent, Stephen Douglas.

In the months after his election, Lincoln tried to find a Southerner as a symbol of national unity. But he drew sharp limits. He would appoint no one who did not endorse the Republican platform. What was the point, Lincoln asked, in naming someone who did not share the president’s basic principles? “Does he surrender to Mr. Lincoln,” the president-elect wondered, “or Mr. Lincoln to him?”

Limiting his appointments to like-minded Republican rivals was no guarantee of a harmonious administration either. The worst of Lincoln’s cabinet appointments was Simon Cameron, a senator from Pennsylvania. Cameron had been one of Lincoln’s major rivals for the Republican nomination. He eventually threw his support to Lincoln at the convention and fully expected to be paid back with a cabinet position.

Cameron had a reputation as corrupt, and he had made a lot of enemies over the years. Nevertheless, against his better judgment Lincoln appointed him secretary of war. Soon enough, charges of irregularity in the awarding of military contracts were flying. Within a year Lincoln had to get rid of his former rival by offering him a diplomatic post in Russia.

The rest of the “team of rivals” spent the war years scheming and squabbling among themselves. The cabinet never really functioned as a cohesive group. Lincoln replaced Cameron with Edwin M. Stanton, a former Democrat who had never been one of his political rivals. But Stanton quickly grew so suspicious of leaks by his fellow cabinet officers that he stopped bringing important questions to the table, reserving such discussions for private audiences with Lincoln.

He was not the only cabinet secretary who preferred back-channel communication to full discussion with the cabinet. Secretary of State William Seward, Lincoln’s main rival for the nomination, eventually gained so much private access to Lincoln that he didn’t bother attending most cabinet meetings. Most of the other cabinet secretaries became jealous of Seward’s close relationship with the president.

No one was more suspicious of Seward than Treasury Secretary Salmon Chase, another rival for the Republican nomination. Chase was competent but never really loyal to Lincoln. His double-dealing eventually provoked a “cabinet crisis” that left Chase humiliated. He grew so disgusted that he rarely attended regular cabinet meetings. But Chase kept scheming, and in 1864 he ran a barely concealed campaign to deprive Lincoln of the party’s re-nomination. As soon as Lincoln had secured the Republican nod he accepted Chase’s resignation.

more





Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
dailykoff Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-22-08 02:45 PM
Response to Original message
1. Where are the "rivals"?
So far it's Wall Street-loving Clintonites straight down the line.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
liberalmuse Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-22-08 02:47 PM
Response to Original message
2. The MSM is misreading the message Obama came away with...
Edited on Sat Nov-22-08 02:47 PM by liberalmuse
from this book. I think people should take another look at exactly who he is stacking his cabinet with. It is definitely not a 'Team of Rivals'.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-22-08 02:55 PM
Response to Reply #2
4. The writer is a history professor and this is an op-ed about the concept of a "Team of Rivals" n/t


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Thrill Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-22-08 02:54 PM
Response to Original message
3. I fail to see where Obama has this team of Rivals?
He's only talking about adding Hillary,
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AllentownJake Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-22-08 03:00 PM
Response to Reply #3
7. Biden and Richardson
Thought they would be a better President too.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HuckleB Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-22-08 02:56 PM
Response to Original message
5. An interesting but meaningless piece.
Why is everyone getting so excited by the soap opera put on by the media, regarding Obama's cabinet picks?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
izzybeans Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-22-08 02:58 PM
Response to Original message
6. Yeah the rivals aspect is overblown. Functional teams operate on trust and are more creative
Edited on Sat Nov-22-08 03:00 PM by izzybeans
when a diverse set of views are allowed to come to the table. In that sense, it shouldn't be a team of rivals, but a team of allied countervailing views. You can't have your political enemies in the room while you are plotting course. But that course can be made more solid if you consider alternative routes to action within a group bringing diverse resources to bear on a particular problem. "Team of Rivals" sounds like a marketing copy invention because its catchy, but as per usual, misses the point entirely.

Even though Dennis Kucinich might have the right point-of-view regarding peace, you will want Wes Clark in the room to map out the contingency that your peace negotiations will falter. (In my little fantasy negotiating table).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Apr 25th 2024, 10:57 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC