Note: I don't usually think it is cool to single out individual commenters since they don't have an equal platform with which to respond, but I was pushed on this one by multiple people in the comments. So, please consider it a respectful rebuttal rather than an angry singling out. Also, consider it a rare event. I'm not going to make a habit of this--Chris
1. Liberals / progressives: Hillary Clinton, Janet Napolitano, Eric Holder, Bill Richardson, Tom Daschle, John Podesta, and Rahm Emanuel
2. Moderates / centrists: Timothy Geithner, Lawrence Summers
3. Conservatives / Republicans: Robert Gates, Jim Jones
It will come as no surprise that, with the possible exception of Eric Holder, I completely disagree with the top cabinet and White House classifications who are listed here as "liberals / progressives." I won't discuss John Podesta, who doesn't occupy either an Obama administration position or a cabinet one. Instead, Podesta is leading Obama's transition team.
The main justification used in the above classifications are voting records provided by various organizations. The inadequacy of such a measure should be obvious to all those who follow Congress closely. Simply put, Congress does not vote on, nor do issue group voting records measure, a broad range of ideologically varied legislation. Members of Congress vote on legislation brought before their committee, and on legislation brought to the floor of their given branch of Congress. Left-wing legislation has reached the floor of Congress on rare occasions during the past fourteen years. Opposing the Bush administration most of the time, along with 70% of the country, does not necessarily make someone left-wing.
In order to develop a fuller picture of an individual's ideological leanings, consider the causes they have championed and, even more importantly, the groups with whom they publicly associate. It is in this way that Hillary Clinton, Tom Daschle, Rahm Emanuel, Janet Napolitano and Bill Richardson are most clearly and easily understood as centrists. This is because, within the Democratic Party, all five of them associate with the Democratic Leadership Council and various "New" Democratic organizations. These are groups that were founded explicitly to push the Democratic Party to the right and to allow their membership means to avoid being labeled left-wing.
The DLC responds that its exclusive purpose is to develop and promote its "Third Way" agenda and that some causes it has lobbied for--e.g., welfare reform, fast-track approval of free-trade agreements--got more Republican than Democratic votes in Congress.
Second, both Janet Napolitano and Bill Richardson are "New Democrats." A quick list of the Governors who consider themselves "New Democrats" can be found here. As with Third Way and the DLC, the various New Democratic organizations were founded in order to push the Democratic Party to the right, and provide a way for their memberships to avoid being identified as left-wing. Even though Third Way denies that this is it's purpose, consider the etymological origin of the term "Blue Dog," a related organization:
"Blue Dog Democrat" is playfully derived from the original term Yellow Dog Democrat. It was former Texas Democratic Rep. Pete Geren who said that the members had been "choked blue" by those "extreme" Democrats, from the left.[2] Thus, he is credited for coining the term Blue Dog Democrat.
Blue Dogs are overtly anti-lefitst. In the previous session of Congress, the Blue Dogs and the New Democrats shared 15 members, roughly 30% of their overall membership. That is a lot of overlap. The reason these groups can share so many members is because the two groups share primary reasons for their existence: to push the party to the right and distance themselves from the left. Consider how the New Democrats describe themselves, while keeping in mind the origin of the term "Blue Dog:"
Founded in 1997, The New Democrat Coalition (NDC) provides moderate, pro-growth Members of Congress with the opportunity to advance a common sense policy agenda to move our country in the right direction. New Democrats have built a reputation as the "go-to" group in Congress on the critical issues of economic growth, national security, personal responsibility, and technology development.
Hailing from every region of the country, New Democrats are intent on modernizing both the Democratic Party and the country.
So, one group wants to prevent being "'choked blue' by those 'extreme' Democrats from the left," while the other is intent on "modernizing the Democratic Party and the country." Given that the two groups share 30% of their membership, and that they both vote noticeably to the right of the rest of the Democratic Party, it isn't difficult to figure out that Blue Dogs and New Democrats exist, at least in part, as a means for centrist and conservative Democrats to push the party to the right, and to distance their membership from the left.
To ensure that liberals don't slip through the cracks, NDN requires each politician who seeks entree to its largesse and contacts to fill out a questionnaire that asks his or her views on trade, economics, education, welfare reform, and other issues. The questions are detailed, forcing candidates to state clearly whether or not they support views associated with the New Democrat Coalition, and it concludes by asking, "Will you join the NDC when you come to Congress?" Next, Rosenberg interviews each candidate, and then NDN determines which candidacies are viable before providing financial support.
New Democrats, including Hillary Clinton, Tom Daschle, Rahm Emanuel, Janet Napolitano and Bill Richardson, are not leftists. They all associate with, and have received the endorsement of, groups that are largely designed to thwart the left-wing of the Democratic Party, and to otherwise save America from leftists. To then call them leftists and claim that most of Obama's cabinet picks have been leftists so far is to equate groups like the Blue Dogs, Third Way, the DLC and New Democrats with leftism, even though they all of those groups were founded explicitly to organize against, and distance their membership, from the left.
So, that leaves us with Eric Holder. Since he was never in Congress, there is comparatively little public record about the causes he has championed and the groups he has associated with. However, representing Chiquita in a dispute with the Justice Department over funding right-wing paramilitary groups in Columbia is not very promising. Still, I admit that I don't think Holder's record is as clear, so I will reserve judgment.
At the very least, that leaves only one of the five cabinet picks discussed here as possibly left-wing. It should be noted that Tom Daschle might (I re-emphasize might) be in the opposite situation as Hillary Clinton, in that he will be overseeing a policy area where he actually is progressive, even though his overall record is not. I have also heard from sources that I trust that Daschle, unlike Harry Reid, regularly encouraged the Democratic Senate caucus to take a more progressive approach. I didn't hear any examples, and I am just repeating what I have heard. So, maybe Daschle will be alright. I have a wait and see attitude on his tenure.
Still, this does mean that Obama's current cabinet picks, or his rumored to be leading choices, are almost entirely Republicans or DLC "New" Democrats. To put my complaint more succinctly, it is a centrist cabinet lacking any clear progressives. While there are at least three examples of progressives scoring senior staff positions within the White House, the same cannot be said, as of this writing, of the cabinet picks. If this really is going to be an administration that listens to diverse voices, we need representation in both areas. Right now, progressives are not represented in the new cabinet.
