| Obama's cabinet includes 2 each of sitting Governors and Senators (Clinton, Salazar, Richardson, Napolitano). You might include Biden too, making the score 3 and 2. The significance is that all of these have given up powerful, independent roles in the Presidential feeder leagues for subservient roles within the Presidency. If you look at the Republican side, McCain had no shortage of eager Senators and Governors willing to be his VP either. For Bush's first Cabinet, he didn't pick any sitting Senators, but he did pick 2 sitting governors, and at least 2 others were under serious consideration. Similarly for Obama, it is pretty clear he could have had even more Senators (Kerry, Murray, Dodd) and Governors (Granholm, Blagojevich) if he had wanted them.
For some context, let's examine what happened for the first cabinets of a couple other Presidents, in situations somewhat analogous to Obama's. Obama is coming to power with a large electoral victory, and substantial gains in Congress after a long period of relative powerlessness for his party and particularly for his ideology (wherein I group him broadly as a liberal).
FDR: Democrats Return From A Long Wander In the Desert
1932 was a large sea-change in voting behaviour, and this was apparent at the moment. Democrats had not been in the White House since Wilson, and had not controlled Congress since 1919. Even Wilson's victory in 1912 came in a three way race, and he failed to get a majority of the popular vote in his re-election. It was clear that this was a historic opportunity for the Democratic party. You might expect then, with the high degree of interest in FDR's cabinet, that sitting Democratic office holders like Governors and Senators would be eager for a chance to serve in the Roosevelt cabinet. Not so much:
Cabinetmaking is easier in October than in February. During that interval the President-elect learned that he could not crook his finger and get the ready services of his party's first & foremost. Much mentioned before election but not to be found on last week's slate were the national names of Bernard Mannes Baruch, Owen D. Young, Newton Diehl Baker, Albert Cabell Ritchie, Alfred Emanuel Smith, Carter Glass. Even his two ranking Cabinet officers Mr. Roosevelt had to "draft" (his own word) into Federal service.
There's quite a list of refusals. Senator Carter Glass, whom we might know by his later handiwork on Glass-Steagall, turned down being Secretary of the Treasury. Senator Bronson Cutting, turned down Secretary of the Interior and Maryland Governor Albert Richie had turned down an offer to be FDR's running mate.
FDR's first cabinet had no sitting Governors, and only 3 Senators. Senator Cordell Hull as Secretary of State had been elected to the Senate in only 1930, and was quite junior. Montana Senator Thomas Walsh was 73 when he accepted the post of Attorney-General, and in fact never served as he died on the train to Washington. Even so, Time quipped thus about his level of enthusiasm:
Attorney General. Thomas James Walsh, 73, Senator from Montana, was more excited last week about taking a wife in Havana than about his seat in the Cabinet.
The final Senator to agree to sit in FDR's first cabinet was Claude Swanson. Time (ibid) notes:
Secretary of the Navy. Claude Augustus Swanson, 70, got into the Cabinet only when his Senate colleague from Virginia turned down the Treasury. Behind his appointment lay the following political situation: Senator Swanson is up for reelection next year; Harry Flood Byrd was getting ready to beat him for renomination; by sidestepping into the Cabinet. Senator Swanson makes way for Harry Byrd to enter the Senate immediately by appointment, neatly saves his own old face.
Of three Senators agreeing to serve, one is quite junior (and got Secretary of State, which used to be even more powerful), another quite elderly, and the third facing certain defeat. On the other hand, Senators turned down powerful posts at Treasury and Interior, and a Governor turned down the Vice-Presidency. It is a stark contrast to all the Governors and Senators who were interested in being Obama's running mate, and their apparent willingness to serve in his cabinet. Evidently in 1932, being a Governor or Senator in the Majority was a more appealing prospect than serving in the Cabinet of a landslide winning Democratic President.
Reagan: Republican Revolutionaries' Grand Triumph
Jumping ahead to 1980. Although the Republicans had not been out of power for very long at the Presidential level, Reagan's win was a big deal for them, particularly the movement conservatives. Nixon had won big in 1972, but being chased from office two years later really spoiled the savour of that victory, and had never managed to win either chamber of Congress. Reagan at least had taken the Senate, giving the Republicans their strongest governing opportunity since 1954, when Eisenhower lost control of Congress (and no need to rehash what conservatives thought of Eisenhower either).
Yet, looking at Reagan's first cabinet he doesn't have even one sitting Governor or Senator. I can't find any evidence of any of them turning him down, but it seems Reagan's cabinet decisions were conducted in a secretive manner. The closest we get is retiring Senator Richard Schweiker taking the post of Secretary of Health and Human Services.
I wondered if this was because the kinds of movement Conservatives Reagan would have wanted in government were not Senators and Governors, who would be more of the Rockefeller Republican mold in 1980, but Time notes:
The Republican New Right is not happy with Reagan's Cabinet carpentry. Except for Stockman, the ultraconservatives have been completely shut out so far. Collectively, Reagan's choices announce louder than anything he has said that he intends to run a pragmatic Administration, one not bound by ideology, and the right wing is vocally dismayed. Said Richard Viguerie, a leading hardliner, accurately enough: "It's the kind of Cabinet Jerry Ford or George Bush would have assembled. I'm sick to my stomach. Reagan gave all the winks and signals that he was going to be a true conservative, and he turns his back on us."
Reagan was largely considered a lightweight, and the kind of person whose Cabinet could have used the seasoning of a few sitting Republican officials, so it is surprising that he chose none. Did some turn him down, or did he just not even ask them since he figured they would rather remain where they were?
Just to be sure, I checked on Jimmy Carter, and his cabinet too, had almost no sitting officials from the two top shelves, just one sitting Governor (from a small state), and no Senators were in Carter's initial Cabinet (there were a couple House members, but being 1 of 435, it's not surprising a Cabinet post is more appealing). In fact the mayors of LA and Detroit turned down posts in the Carter Administration.
Clearly things have changed, and the Presidency is now the best game in town, or out of it. In part II, we will examine some of why this has happened. |
