This is not a post about the relative merits of Eric Holder for the position of Attorney General. Nor is it about the ideological makeup of the administration officials Barack Obama introduced yesterday (parenthetically, while the group lacks in progressive leanings they are at least a diverse bunch, 3 of 6 female and 2 of 6 African American).
As I watched Obama unveil his national security team a jingle from childhood went through my mind:
"One of these things is not like the others, One of these things just doesn't belong, Can you tell which thing is not like the others By the time I finish my song?"
The one that didn't belong was Eric Holder. I'll explain below.
Of course you could argue that maybe Bob Gates is the one that didn't belong or maybe Jim Jones and those points would be perfectly valid. But my point is different and it's this: the Attorney General, the head of the Department of Justice, should not be lumped together with "national security." Since when is national security the right label for what AGs do?
Since December 1, 2008 apparently and I think the symbolism in that is disturbing. Yes, the Justice Department is involved in counterterrorism and has been embroiled in the question of what to do with "enemy combatants." But the department should not be viewed as one more tool of an administration's foreign policy. Here's the defense of this approach from Marc Ambinder:
Announcing, at once, an attorney general, the homeland security chief, Obama's defense chief, his chief diplomat, his chief negotiator and his chief adviser sends the message that Obama's conception of national security includes the need to defend against terror attacks at home and to devise a sensible mechanism to detain and punish those who attack us. More prosaically, Obama has chosen to render the foreign policy decision making mechanism as a table, over which people will disagree to the point of consensus.
The Justice Department has intersections with every cabinet-level agency in the administration. It is no more one cog in the national security apparatus than it is one part of the Department of Commerce or any other grouping. Obama is sending a signal, intended or not, as to what he sees as the primary role of the AG.
I think it is unprecedented but it is hard to research prior to the last two administrations. George Bush nominated John Ashcroft for AG on the same day he nominated Christie Whitman to head the EPA. Bill Clinton nominated Zoe Baird for AG on the same day he announced his nominations for Secretaries of Agriculture, Interior and Transportation as well as Surgeon General and United States Trade Representative.
At one time the AG's office was seen as primarily a domestic agency like those above. Apparently in a post-9/11 world the Justice Department is more rightly seen as part of the national security apparatus. The Bush administration made this clear when they installed Bush minion Alberto Gonzalez to the job and apparently the subjugation of the AG's office is to continue.
I don't like it. My preference would be for an independent Justice Department which would have been better symbolized by making the announcement on its own day.
