I agree in principle with Mitch Daniels’s Washington Post op-ed:
The pattern of permitting new presidents to form Cabinets of their own choosing, and enabling them to get started promptly, began to erode after the inauguration of the administration I served. President Barack Obama saw four of his 15 nominees delayed beyond his first weeks in office. Then President Trump was blocked on all but three. Now we read that an opposition Senate — if that is what results from the coming runoff elections in Georgia — may challenge a large number of President-elect Joe Biden’s nominees.
After a lengthy and gentlemanly defense of President-Elect Biden’s nomination of Neera Tanden he concludes:
My own previous encounters with Tanden were invariably adversarial. When I was governor of Indiana, her interest group attacked our state reforms of health care, infrastructure and education, always harshly (and, as the subsequent evidence showed, unjustifiably). I was once disinvited from a forum her organization was hosting for the sin of disagreeing about yet another issue. But, were I voting in the Senate, I would save my criticisms, and negative ballots, for the substantive arguments to come, regardless of who is at OMB.
Sadly, from public profanity to violence on TV to the collapse of objective journalism, we have seen that it is rare if not impossible to revive standards once they have decayed and ratcheted downward. The tradition of granting deference to a new president’s picks may not yet be beyond resuscitation, but one more cycle like the last one and it probably will be. Confirming Neera Tanden would be a small and cost-free step toward reviving the comity and civility we have lost.
I will disagree with him in detail, however. I don’t think the erosion of that particular standard goes back to Barack Obama but much, much farther. The last cabinet appointment to be outright rejected was John Tower, whom George H. W. Bush nominated to be his Secretary of Defense. By nearly all accounts Sen. Tower was a sonovagun and his former Senate colleagues expressed their displeasure by rejecting his nomination, the first such rejection in thirty years and the only rejection of a recent former senator in the 20th century. I don’t believe that his offenses were drunkenness and womanizing. I think it was revenge for the treatment of House Speaker Jim Wright.
Since Towers’s rejection, having two or three appointees withdraw their nominations has become a commonplace and Barack Obama’s appointees were no exception.
While I agree with Mr. Daniels that Joe Biden’s appointments should be confirmed promptly, let’s not imagine that extreme partisanship began twelve years ago. It goes back a lot farther than that.
I would modify it slightly; a Presidents nominee should get a vote promptly.
For various reasons; the Constitution gives the Senate the power to reject a President’s nominees and it shouldn’t be a dormant power.
Ms. Teedan’s problem is the equivalent of an assistant professor insulting the rest of the department faculty and then finding out they insulted the members of the tenure board who is reviewing their application for tenure.
It’s only human if the tenure board might want to make the applicant squirm a little before approving the application.
I disagree. I think presidents have a right to the close advisors they choose and the Senate has a responsibility to have actual material reasons not to confirm—the default posture should be to confirm with the burden of proof on the Senate.
That was the problem with the John Tower matter. Yes, he was a jerk but being a jerk was not enough to disqualify him. He should have been confirmed despite his failings as a human being.
I think the contrasting view is that presidents-elect have a responsibility to select close advisors that won’t effectively be poking a stick in the collective eye of the Senate. That’s the argument against Ms. Tanden. She is that sort of candidate.
We do see things alike; hence my example the tenure board is making the applicant squirm while approving it.
The question is what’s material, the list of cabinet nominees that failed since Towers have failed for the following
(a) hiring illegal immigrants (Baird, Wood, Chavez, Kerik, Puzder)
(b) unpaid taxes (Daschle)
(c) personal scandal (Lake?, Goeber, Shanahan)
(d) corruption investigation (Richardson, Inman?, Lake?)
(e) accusations of mismanagement (Jackson)
(f) excessive partisanship (Ratcliffe)
Excessive partisanship is not material. Accusations of mismanagement, corruption, or personal scandal could be material, but deserve investigation. Obvious breaches of the law seem material.
My gut feel is excessive partisanship sinks a lot of nominees, but its at the sub-cabinet level and usually by stalling, not by outright voting them down.
“I think the contrasting view is that presidents-elect have a responsibility to select close advisors that won’t effectively be poking a stick in the collective eye of the Senate.”
I dont think that is really possible anymore. The Senate will find a reason to claim they have been poked. It is completely tribal politics. Competency, trying, interpersonal skills dont matter much anymore. If you claim that you think taxes ought to be raised on the wealthy, you will be anathema. They would be declared a communist.
I pretty much agree with you two, but this caveat is important. I would say the president has the obligation to choose someone who has not engaged in personal attacks on character without cause, but on policy anyone they choose will be offensive.
Steve
I’m afraid that has become a distinction without a difference. For some Republicans simply being a Democrat is enough for attacks on one’s character and vice versa.
To put it into a Confucius-like aphorism, the truly virtuous person never attacks another’s character.