Revision Update: US Politics: Cabinet Government in the US?

Abe Fortas once remarked:With regard to the cabinet as an institution, as differentiated from the individuals who compose it, it is a joke. As a collegium, it does not exist. Its members, serving as a cabinet, neither advise the president nor engage in any meaningful consideration of serious problems or issues.”This would seem to confirm the view that the USA operates with a singular executive as opposed to the plural executive used in the UK. It was consequently something of a surprise to see a range of cabinet secretaries appear on various TV programmes in a concerted effort to rage against the impact of the automatic cuts in government spending that will result as a result of the president and the Congress failing to come to a compromise agreement over the federal budget deficit.

Arne Duncan the education secretary highlighted the loss of teachers’ jobs that would follow the imposition of the cuts. Ray LaHood, the transportation secretary, warned of the dangers of reducing the number of air traffic controllers, whilst Leon Panetta, the defense secretary, highlighted how civilian workers would have to give up one day a week of work.

It is rare to witness such a collective public display from cabinet secretaries who normally focus on the sole concerns of their departments. Consequently, their use did illustrate that they can serve the valuable purpose of acting as public relations wing of the White House, promoting the policies of the administration.

In terms though of considering their role as close confidants of the president, and as having a vital role to play in policy formulation; one should proceed with caution. The famous remark of Moynihan to “never underestimate the power of proximity” still rings true. It is the case that the Executive Office of the President is closer to the president in the White House than the department heads. The director of the Office of Management and Budget will have a more influential role to play over budget negotiations than the secretary to the Treasury.

In a collective sense, cabinet can serve another purpose which is that of promoting an image for electoral gain. It was President Clinton who famously remarked that he wanted a cabinet that “looked like America.”. Consequently, by appointing women andrepresentatives from ethnic minorities, it could be the case that the support from these groups would be increased. Great play was made of the majorities won by President Obama in the 2012 election from women, gays and Hispanic and black communities. It is something of a surprise then to see President Obama being criticised for his selections to his second term team. The charge has been levelled that the new cabinet resembles a “white boys club” due to the selection of Lew (Treasury), Kerry (state department) and Hagel at Defense and Duncan (education) and Vilsack (agriculture) both staying on. The departure of Hilda Solice from Labor represents the loss of a Latina woman.

This could be countered by reference to the nominations of Moniz (Latino) at energy, Holder (African American) remaining as Attorney General, Shinseki (Asian American) remaining at Veterans’ affairs and the following women remaining: Sebelius (Health and Human Services); Napolitano (Homeland Security) and Jewel the nominee for the department of the interior.

Whilst collectively cabinet may have little role to play, individually, cabinet secretaries can and do advise. Greater diversity in cabinet assists decision making and the idea of a team of rivals could lead to a more considered view. Some fear for example that the national security team of Kerry, Hagel and Brennan at the CIA are too similar and that they all share President’s “world view” which may result in too blinkered an approach to foreign policy.

Questions.

1.) Why does the President trust the EXOP more than cabinet secretaries?

2.) What is the “power of proximity”?

3.) How does the National Security Council highlight the competing forces for the control of foreign policy?