In These Times: Our Picks for an Obama Cabinet: Part One

[marmar]

22 to Know
Our Picks for an Obama Cabinet: Part One

By In These Times Editors and Contributors



In 2007, the Pew Research Center conducted a poll asking Americans if they could identify a man named Robert Gates. As the Iraq War raged, fewer than one in four respondents knew he was the secretary of defense. Is this a sad commentary on whether the public is following events in Iraq? Perhaps. But more likely it’s a reflection of the overall obscurity of our government’s top decision makers.

In a media environment that portrays presidents as the sole messianic implementer of their agenda, the steep drop-off in name recognition is predictable — even if it belies how power really works.

Far more than a brain trust of advisers, the U.S. Cabinet has been the instrument by which political rhetoric becomes public policy. From Secretary of Labor Frances Perkins (under FDR) to Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld (under Ford and Bush II), Cabinet officials have been the chief sculptors and enforcers of the best — and worst — presidential policies.

In many ways, administrations are the sum of their Cabinets’ work, and that axiom would be especially powerful should Sen. Barack Obama win the 2008 election. With just four years of federal legislative experience, the Illinois senator would be the antithesis of the old Washington hands who tend to occupy the Oval Office — and based on his campaign themes, he will likely enter office with a mandate for progressive change.

Which raises the question: What would a truly progressive Cabinet look like? There has been no such thing in at least a generation (if not longer), so it is a difficult — but critical — question to answer. After all, who heads our federal government’s major departments will have an impact on all issues, from Africa policy to zero-tolerance criminal sentencing.

In These Times asked its editors and writers to suggest their top progressive choices for a potential Obama Cabinet. We asked that contributors weigh ideological and political considerations, with an eye toward recommending people who have both progressive credentials and at least an arguable chance at being appointed in an Obama White House.

This group of people would represent at once the most progressive, aggressive and practical Cabinet in contemporary history. Of course, it is by no means a definitive list. It is merely one proposal aimed at staring a longer discussion about the very concept of a progressive Cabinet — and why it will be important to a new administration, especially if that administration is serious about change.

-David Sirota


Secretary of State: Jim McDermott

Secretary of state has two major tasks: To define and represent U.S. interests in the world, and to bring the rest of the world’s interests to the United States. Rep. Jim McDermott (D-Wash.) — a 10-term member of Congress and a Progressive Caucus stalwart — would do both.

McDermott has been a consistent voice for single-payer healthcare, for increased funding for the U.S. and global HIV/AIDS crisis, and for maintaining the estate tax. And he has stated unequivocally that Big Oil and the Iraq War are causing skyrocketing oil prices.

Like any U.S. politician, his record isn’t perfect, particularly on trade. But unlike most of his colleagues, McDermott is independent and willing to think and act outside the Washington box.

McDermott actively opposes U.S. threats of war against Iran, and he has challenged Israel directly, saying it’s “both appropriate and urgent for the U.S. to raise questions about intentions” toward Iran.

Secretary McDermott would not only call for redeploying combat troops out of Iraq, he would also press for bringing home all U.S. troops and mercenaries. He would enforce ignored laws prohibiting U.S. bases there. And he would immediately renounce U.S. efforts to control Iraq’s oil. In fact, he read into the Congressional Record the full text of the 1930 Anglo-Iraqi treaty, which set the same terms for British control of oil that the Bush administration is trying to impose on Iraq today.

Secretary of State Jim McDermott would reclaim the primacy of diplomacy in U.S. foreign policy.

—Phyllis Bennis ........(more)

The complete piece is at: http://www.inthesetimes.com/article/3933/twentytwo_to_know1/

[Kingofalldems]

1. Not yet please

I don't believe in jinxes but I could be wrong.

[Shiver]

3. Agreed

In fact, to play it safe, go outside, spin around three times, and spit.

You don't want to tempt the guy sitting high atop the thing...

[Kingofalldems]

4. I just did what you said

and now I hear sirens.:rofl:

[Shiver]

5. Crap, not you!

I meant the OP! Damn, now we've screwed up karma... okay, you, go outside through a different door, take off your shoes, and spin the opposite way six times.

We should be safe...

[OneGrassRoot]

2. stupid question...

MUST a candidate wait until having won the election before announcing their cabinet selections?

I know it's getting the cart before the horse, but I was hoping to see this at the convention. Then again, I suppose those selected would be hesitant to get on board in such a big way before they know their guy is the winner. Still, it would be an incredible vote of confidence if they did, and inspire more votes of confidence from the public, IMHO.

[onenote]

6. no, they don't have to wait. But it would be a bad idea to announce in advance

It would simply give the media specific targets to shoot at. Recent history has shown that cabinet picks sometimes turn out to have baggage. No reason to risk it. Plus, you've got a lot of folks working for you at very high levels who may have their own ambitions or close ties to potential cabinet members. No reason to alienate at this point.

[OneGrassRoot]

7. Gotcha. Thanks. :) n/t