HRC: “Waiting for orders, Sir”
By John Burke | Related entries in News
New York Times photo
Ever since President-elect Obama made his selection of Hillary Clinton for Secretary of State official, the notion has taken hold among the commentariat (both pro and con Hillary) that Mrs. Clinton will work hard for the Obama team, not for herself, in large part because she will have no choice. After all, Obama made it clear at the announcement that he would be in charge, listen to all points of view, and make the tough decisions.
Well, what else could he say? I’m sure he means it, but is it true that because he has the ultimate authority — he’s the “commander in chief” as the pols and pundits like to say — Clinton, Gates, Jones and all the rest will get on famously with each other, look to him for decisions, and always follow orders?
Maybe, but the point being missed in this new “narrative” is that Secretaries of State and Defense and other top-ranking officials don’t sit around a table exchanging ideas and await the big decisions from the President. They make decisions, to a large extent acting on their own necessarily broad authority. They often seek to create a fait accompli about policies they prefer or, at least, to push those policies along. They work tirelessly to influence the President’s decisions, not always by marshaling the best arguments. To get their way, they maneuver among themselves, leak to the press, and gather support from Congress and elsewhere to get the President to make the decisions they want. They easily fall to fighting among themselves, while each professes to be the strongest supporter of the Presidents policy goals. Every so often, one will put a challenge to a President’s face.
To a degree, this competition for policies and power is institutional. State, the civilian Pentagon, the military brass (indeed, the different services), CIA and others have different perspectives that derive from their separate roles, and these perspectives shape often-clashing policy alternatives. Even under the best of circumstances — an absence of urgency, a strong President, and top officials who don’t have political ambitions — these rivalries flourish. Look at the pushing and shoving in Reagan’s administration or Bill Clinton’s. When the going gets tough for whatever reason, the backstabbing can become vicious, as witness the conflicts within the Bush 43 and Carter administrations.
So that’s why Obama put a tough Marine, Jim Jones, in the National Security Adviser post, right? Probably, and it’s a great move. But few National Security Advisers have been able to keep everyone in line. Henry Kissinger did, but he may have been unique. More often, the holder of that post becomes just another rival.
Enter Hillary, the politician. I have to reiterate what I wrote before: I like Hillary; I voted for her in the primary; she’s smart, talented and tough. Unfortunately for Obama, those are qualities that make her more formidable as a Cabinet member who will want to get her way. But what makes her more likely than most to be a source of trouble for the President is the fact that she is a politician with a sizable constituency and a practiced ability to appeal to wide audiences. There has not been a politician in charge at Foggy Bottom (except for a couple of brief caretakers) since Harry Truman appointed a rival, James F. Byrnes, in 1945. That appointment was a terrible failure. Byrnes did not — as Hillary will not — await orders from on high or toss ideas around with his colleagues. He marched away to his own tune and Truman had to fire him.
The issue for Obama is this: if Hillary marches off on her own, will he be able to fire her?
More by John Burke at The Purple Center
This entry was posted on Thursday, December 4th, 2008 and is filed under News. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
December 4th, 2008 at 5:05 am
This is a fascinating view of the potential problems, yet it has a pessimism that I don’t share.
The Presidents you cite–Truman, Reagan, Clinton–were eventually mired in scandal or, in Truman’s case, mired in the ubiquitous lack of popularity of a post-war president (the Brits couldn’t wait to dump Churchill, for example, despite all he had done for the war effort). I don’t have tarot cards, so I can’t predict the level of scandal in Obama’s office, but certainly most of his own self-inflictions were from deep in the past rather than continually generated. From that, we can surmise that he will rise above his staff, rather than lose out to any of their political maladies.
When you explore “the best of circumstances,” I think what you’re exploring is a vacuum, which does not exist in Obama’s circumstances. He is ipso facto a war-time President who also inherits a vast array of domestic problems, and his staff will be forced to behave according to the urgency at hand. Bill Clinton had time for Monica Lewinsky; given our dire condition, even interns of the White House will be put to more use than simply lying on their back.
It’s intriguing that you as a former HRC supporter, and me, an Obama supporter, have switched positions on her loyalty to matters other than herself. The Clintons have proven hard to predict, but until she shows me otherwise, I believe she’ll be an excellent SOS, and that she knows her success is tied to Obama’s success, not to a separate legacy that she can burnish at her leisure. There simply isn’t time for that. Once the US is righted again, I imagine she will have already moved on, either back to the Senate or somewhere else outside the White House.
A healthy US could bring about those best of circumstances that you write about it, and then there would be time for individual acting.
Jake
December 4th, 2008 at 5:14 am
I have to take issue with your assertion. To assume that HRC will march off on her own foreign policy agenda is ridiculous - she has a vested interest in working with the Obama administration - not against it. There’s an old expression - “peel the apple in your hand, not the one on the tree” - it’s fitting in this instance. Obama will have more than enough problems to deal with without allowing the manufacture of drama with the Clintons, which won’t happen. It’s no secret the Clinton’s are egomaniacal, but a world stage is exactly what they need - in any other role they would be a big problem - in this role they’re perfect. Besides, after Bush and Rice a trained Poodle would do a better job rebuilding our foreign policy - and the Clintons are far better than any trained animal - although Bill will need to be properly leashed and muzzled.
December 4th, 2008 at 6:59 am
Answer - yes, he can fire her, because he’s earning so much cred as a team player. Any Clintonian antics, and the base won’t stand for it. Which is why she won’t “march off” - she’s well aware that her reputation as a team player is at stake. The boss will win any confrontations. The two Clinton’s are in just the right spot; they’ve been paid the proper respect, and they will return in kind. They’re egomaniacs; they’re not stupid.
December 4th, 2008 at 8:33 am
Hillary will do a great job for our country and Obama is very lucky that she accepted this position. The country will be in good hands once again, with our reputation and credibility throughout the world being restored. I trust Obama will not try to double cross her, but will appreciate her knowledge and hard work and credit her for that.
December 4th, 2008 at 8:37 am
Newsweek, in those “behind-the-scenes” stories it had after the election, mentioned something interesting Hillary supposedly said to an aide during the primaries. She said that she was happy in the Senate, and wasn’t sure why she was running for President. I don’t know how factual that is, but combining it with Newsweek’s accounts of Hillary’s haphazard management of her (seemingly) obnoxious staffers, it paints an interesting picture. Hillary might actually, in retrospect, prefer SecState over president, not necessarily because of the state of the economy and so forth and the challenges those things present to a would-be president, or because she thinks her self unqualified for the job, but because she felt too pressured by the political establishment and by her husband into running for president when she actually wasn’t that interested in the job.
This is, of course, just conjecture. :)
December 4th, 2008 at 9:49 am
Hillary will be superb. In fact, my money is on the fact that she will be the most accomplished SofS ever. We are very fortunate that she accepted. Thank you, Hillary!