My thoughts with this and ALL cabinet picks is that the activist groups on the left (and hey, I’m very far left and very much in favor of what the activist groups stand for, don’t get me wrong), need to chill out a bit. I understand how many years some groups have longed for a sympathetic President, only to see at best someone who ignored their plight but did not harm, and at worst who completely moved the goalpost further and further away. And I understand when we FINALLY elect a President who really seems to care about these issues, how we feel this sort of kinship, this kindred spirit aspect, and therefore we expect he will act in the same way we might act and put people in these positions who are driven by the same ideology.
But the problem is, in this political environment, someone who would just radically change things in that way probably wouldn’t have gotten elected. There are too many folks in the center and to the right who would balk at just completely putting a full blown environmental activist in charge of the enviroment. The reason people beyond just the netroots trust Obama enough to give him a mandate is that he has a reasoned approach to governance. Now don’t let that confuse you into thinking he’s a moderate in liberal clothing…that’s not what I’m saying at all. What I’m saying is you HAVE to learn to separate his ideology from his methods.
I recall hearing something during the campaign about how as a state Legislator, he came in and really pushed through campaign finance reform at a time when NO ONE on either side thought it was possible. His ideology was that this needs to be fixed. But he set his target to the middle right, and began working with Republicans to build bi-partisan support. So, this other state Legislator who was far left kind of scolded him and said that we need bigger change than this (sound familiar). And he said something to the effect of “I’d like to go to Mars with you, but first we have to get to the moon.” I’m not sure of the exact quote, but that illustrates how Obama governs.
Health care is another good example. Obama believes that single payer is the way to go, it makes the most sense. But our system of employer based health care and for profit insurers is so entrenched, and the business interests are so locked down on this issue, that there would be no way, even with a friendly Congress to go from what we have to single payer. Obama recognizes that the great should not be the enemy of the good, and that we NEED to do SOMETHING and that the something we do NEEDS to be good and solid.
I think as with his other cabinet picks that are infuriating the furthest left reaches of the party, they are very wise, pragmatic picks. Consider this. If Obama were to pick the liberal dream team, he’d end up emphasizing ideology over experience, because let’s face it, the most ideologically left people haven’t been involved in these high level positions before, or anything close to it…the agenda of the past several Presidents has seen to it that if anything we’ve been floating between center right and far right for the last 28 years. So it’s IMPOSSIBLE to find someone who has the experience to be effective who has a great liberal track record of getting things done. So, essentially there is a time and a place for talent, but we are in pretty rough waters right now, and what we need, or at least what I think we need is an idea man up front pulling the strings, but the people who are getting down to the brass tacks need to be people who know how to get things done swiftly.
So, Obama needs to get someone who understands both sides of the issue. Salazar may well have close ties to the mining and ranching industries, but if you look at his record, he has not voted in favor of industry over environment in a lock step fashion…rather his opinions have taken all sides of the issue into consideration and he has done what logic and common sense would seem to dictate. I think Obama needs someone who doesn’t completely shun the industries without understanding them from the inside. If the ultra liberal mindset were to take hold here, we’d get someone in charge who would probably be very urban, who would perhaps understand land use issues from a theoretical/hypothetical/textbook point of view. Here we have someone who is more in touch with the rural, and who has a vested interest not just in the industry, but in the land itself. I think Salazar is a guy who isn’t going to turn a blind eye to the needs of business, but who WILL balance business interests with environmental concerns, I think he has more than proven that.
Now the argument that something more radical needs to be done because so much has been radically done in the other direction is not without merit, but I would argue that this was the exact problem most liberals had with the Bush administration. Bush pretty much quashed any dissenting views and expanded the power of the Presidency so that he could pretty much have it his way or the highway. And for Obama to appoint a dyed in the wool liberal who had the ideological credibility, but not the experience and moderation it takes to consider all points of view I think might be a good short term move, but one which would be extremely dangerous in the long term. One reason Republicans have been so strongly rejected in my opinion is that they have been so in lock step, they went one direction, the direction the President wanted to go, and they didn’t listen to anyone who had a different opinion. Now, yes the far left wants to move the ball back in the right direction, and that’s understandable. But if we just go in and say, damn the torpedos, we have a mandate and this is how it’s going to be, then we doom ourselves to future failure. Because whether it be 4 years, or 8 years, or 12, we could find that some of these big ideas were not practical and following them was a boondoggle. And then we end up with even more problems to sort out, just of a different variety.
If however we take a different approach and do what Obama said he would do all along, and staff the White House with people of varying ideologies so that we can get several viewpoints on any issue, then what we have is a big picture focus. And Obama is a smart guy, we hired him to be the decider (as W would say). But whereas Bush would decide based solely on ideology (which is EXACTLY what the left seems to expect Obama to do), Obama will basically get all points of view, from seasoned veterans and consider any issue from multiple angles, he will focus that through the lens of his own ideological leanings, and he will make the decisions.
Remember that ultimately, Obama still gets to decide, no matter whom he puts in charge of any agency. And I trust he will make a reasoned decision. And therefore I trust his with his cabinet picks. I indeed trust him more when he makes a pick that has broad appeal but pisses off his base, because that to me seems like a pragmatic, real world, considered decision, and not a seat of your pants ideological one. My advice to you and anyone else who is concerned about their pet issues because they are afraid of Obama’s cabinet choices is to just relax, let the man do his job, and trust that HE will be the one dictating the policy, and that he has chosen people who will not go off the reservation, but who will provide Obama with a perspective that perhaps he just plain does not have. Trust that these decisions will ultimately in the long term create solutions that are built on more solid foundations…as they say, you can have it done fast, or you can have it done right. I think too much of the left wants it fast and isn’t considering the qualitative issues enough. Give Salazar a chance, I’m sure if he doesn’t get the results Obama would like to see, Obama will get rid of him. I’m equally sure that Obama is more than capable of giving Salazar the right directions to lead in a manner which will be effective. And I’m equally sure that Obama will not let Salazar or ANY members of his cabinet make decisions which are antithetical to his own beliefs.
Hope you feel a bit better now.
Composing members:
0
Composing members:
0
