It is a testament to the herd-like mentality of political pundits in America that virtually all of them are citing the precedent Abraham Lincoln set almost 150 years ago – by appointing a “team of rivals” to serve in his cabinet – for the proposition that Barack Obama should appoint his political nemesis, Hillary Clinton, to serve as US Secretary of State.
But, with all due respect to Doris Kearns Goodwin – the eminent historian who is shepherding this proposition, the Lincoln precedent is flawed in many respects:
First of all, appointing Hillary as Secretary of State would be tantamount to inviting her (and her husband Bill) to set up a de facto parallel presidency predicated on the fiction that she would deal with foreign affairs, Obama with domestic affairs. This is a perfect recipe for untenable tension within his presidency, which would have Obama constantly looking over his shoulder to see what machinations Hillary is concocting to upstage him.
In fact, Obama should not appoint her to this most powerful position in his cabinet for the same political reasons he decided against having her serve as his vice president – notwithstanding prevailing consensus amongst political pundits that he should.
In addition, this proposition ignores changed circumstances which make the factors Obama must weigh in composing his cabinet wholly different from those Lincoln had to weigh.
For example, because he was elected with such a questionable mandate (with only 39.8% of the popular vote) in a country on the brink of Civil War, Lincoln was forced to appoint a team of rivals not only to preserve his presidency but also to preserve the union. By contrast, Obama’s mandate (with 53% comprised of votes that unified the country more than it has been in decades) effectively insulates him for any challenges to or questions about his presidential authority.
Moreover, no matter her abiding ambition, I rather suspect that Hillary is pragmatic enough to appreciate that, if she could not beat him when he was nothing more than an upstart senator, she does not have a prayer of dethroning Obama as the sitting president of the United States.
Therefore, it does not follow that, like Lincoln, Obama should appoint his rivals to his cabinet “to keep his friends close and his enemies even closer.” Indeed, the political threat Hillary poses has been greatly exaggerated.
That said, Obama would be wise to exploit her popularity by appointing her to serve in a less powerful but very important position – like Secretary of Health and Human Services. This would give her a chance to redeem her failed efforts to usher in universal healthcare during her husband’s administration while keeping her effectively tethered to one issue.
For the record, I think Obama should choose John Kerry to serve as Secretary of State. After all, he has more foreign policy experience than Hillary; he is fluent in several foreign languages (whereas, she’s not in any); and he would surely be more loyal.
Incidentally, besides lying about coming under sniper fire while on PR junket to Bosnia, I challenge Hillary’s advocates to cite what experience qualifies her to serve in this position: her courtesy calls on heads of state, which even Sarah Palin can boast of after meeting a whole slew of them at the UN recently…?
Meanwhile, this would be an ideal way for Obama to repay Kerry for inviting him to speak at the 2004 Democratic National Convention – the seminal occasion that launched his meteoric rise to the presidency just four years later.
Not to mention that Kerry endorsed his candidacy when most political opportunists were still riding Hillary’s bandwagon on her purportedly inevitable path to the presidency….
NOTE: If not Kerry, I think Gov. Bill Richardson of New Mexico would be a better choice than Hillary.
Kira says
With all due respect, Anthony, all political pundits need to stay out of President-elect Obama’s business and/or second-guessing his intellectual process as he develops his White House Staff and Cabinet.
If people will permit a shift in their perception and the mental thoughts prejudicially formed during the campaign, Senator Clinton emerges into view as an inspired choice for Secretary of State and a potential agent of transformational change which is exactly what President-elect Obama is seeking.
He has a distinct 21st Century view of international or foreign relations. His campaign started with a big idea about foreign policy, i.e. the great issues of the future confronting mankind like climate change, terrorism, and pandemic disease, cannot be solved through traditional means of nation-to-nation military force but must be solved through diplomatic means. In other words a redefinition of America’s national interest and what forces influence Americans’ prosperity, health, safety, and security in the 21st Century is in the works.
President-elect Obama will not choose Hillary Clinton to make party peace or to bring warmed-over Clinton policies into the inner-sanctum of his new administration. He will not choose her because she is a woman. If Senator Clinton is the one chosen for Secretary of State, she will have been chosen because she has shown visionary leadership on two of the critical international and moral questions of our age: climate change and the human rights of women (1995 United Nations Conference on Women in Beijing, China).
President-elect Obama and Senator Clinton are more closely aligned on most of the important issues if (all) people are willing to let go of their prejudices and that includes those of yourself towards the Clintons.
The wisest Americans voted to throw-out the doctrinaires and repressive religious agenda of the right-wing Republican Party.
Whether Senator Clinton erroneously voted with the many to enter Iraq, she has become enlightened about that decision and has much to contribute on behalf of the future of America.
Regarding Senator Kerry possibly he will chosen to be a weighty Ambassador to the United Nations as we can see where that body has been heading for a very long time!
Anthony L. Hall says
Kira – you make as good a case for Hillary’s appointment as I suspect anybody could. Thank you for your comment.
Lloyd says
Anthony, I hope someone of his staff reads this. I agree what a mistake this will be, giving her this kind of power, and really doesn’t have the experience and she will do her best to upstage him. Hasn’t he gotten it yet, she is a hardcore “enemy”. I would go with Kerry first, he will never stab Obama in the back. And Obama owes him big time not only coming out early to support Obama, but allowing him to be the key note speaker at the DNC 2004. That is where it all started for Obama. Why was her name ever in the mix. Why did he call her into have a meeting with him. Bad mistake.
deborah christ says
Anthony, Anthony, Anthony, so agreeing with you, then I started thinking, please do not reccomend John Kerry. You are usually so ‘right on’ (except for your stand on global warming), that I get so frustrated and run to your site for some common sense. John Kerry? He will not and does not connect with the majority of Americans, he is East Coast Elite and just requires a tennis racket under his arm and a sweater tied around his neck to confrim the visual.
Bill Richardson, YES, a scruffy fighter with charm and he speaks Spanish very well. Appears to be one-with-the-people and strong enough to buck the DLC and the Clinton’s. He is so far my personal choice, thank you for mentioning him!
Anthony L. Hall says
Deborah, Deborah, Deborah, what fun would I be if I did not disappoint you once in a while…?
As for Kerry, you should bear in mind that, as Secretary of State, it is far more important for him to connect with foreign heads of state than “with the majority of Americans”.