Posted by
Andrews on Monday, January 26, 2009 9:09:27 PM
I have seen several comments on this, but I feel the need to weigh in. Obama's decision to avoid George Bush's "mistake" of appointing a unified cabinet with relatively harmonious opinions, which the press caricatured as "yes men", and instead appoint a cabinet with wildly divergent opinions seems a bad idea.
Now, yes, in Europe many cabinets exist with such strange amalgams of ideas, and as a compromise during a tough time, Lincoln appointed many diverging opinions. However, one needs only to look at the problems Lincoln had with his Secretary of War, or that so many European coalition cabinets have had to see the problems.
Now, the idea is that Obama selected not those who agree with him but those who have the "best ideas". However, that shows a remarkably strange world view. If these people have the best ideas, shouldn't they agree? If one is right, shouldn't his theories dovetail with others who are right? If their opinions are so divergent, doesn't that mean they aren't all right, but some are quite wrong?
Think of it this way, if the state department has three top officials who have differing views of what is important, how can they alll be right? And if Obama truly believes his own views are right, and he better or else why did he run for president, why wouldn't he want to surround himself with people who agree with him?
Let us take another example. Suppose the pope, rather than appointing Catholics as cardinals, chose "the best people" and appointed protestants, Jews, even atheist cardinals. Would that give us a stronger Catholic church? Or would we see it as a strange practice? Essentially a pope denying the importance and correctness of Catholicism?
And that is truly what Obama has done. He has not appointed "the best and brightest", he has intentionally appointed a range of opinions so that he can both appear to be "open minded" and also have a wide range of scapegoats when his "change" fails to live up to its claims.
The simple question we should be asking is this. If Obama really believes he should be president, doesn't that mean he has ideas that will benefit the country? And if so, shouldn't he appoint cabinet members who will help him enact those ideas rather than oppose him and try to impose their own ideas? After all, if their ideas are so good, why shouldn't we have elected them president rather than Obama?
POSTSCRIPT
This is one of those cases of "
pragmatism" that disturb me, the idea that contradictory views can "work". Unless reality is not guided by consistent laws, that is simply impossible. So long as there are laws of nature, laws of economics and the like, then there is a correct position and those who adhere to it should agree to a large degree on the best course of action. Thinking that people can disagree on fundamentals yet both "be right" is that absurd pragmatism that denies any laws at all. Thankfully, I think Obama does not believe this and is doing it all for show. However, if he truly believes that there are simply plans which just happen to work, with no unifying laws governing them, then we are in for an even rougher four years than I anticipated.