Cabinet making

The Politics of President Cabinet Making and there messages

The Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (F.E.M.A) lackluster response to the devastation caused by hurricane Katrina roused criticism of an inept director Michael Brown and the perceived crony politics of the Bush administration. Critics lambasted the president for making an “appointment with a total lack of interest in any qualification other than loyalty.” In 2000, 40% of the high-level FEMA jobs were held by career bureaucrats. By 2004, 19% rose through the ranks of FEMA and related offices. Moreover, according to New York University Public Service professor Paul C. Light, “[t]he real problem here is at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue with the appointments process. It's the people who decided to put [Brown] in place and put all those politicals in place." This raises the questions of how candidates like Brown get confirmed and whether there is a problem with our confirmation process.
The Constitution provides that the president "shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate” whomever he likes. For the most part a president’s nominees, especially to cabinet positions, are “routinely” confirmed. Approximately “4,000 civilian and 65,000 military nominations are submitted to the Senate during each two-year session of Congress” and in the history of the chamber, only nine cabinet members have been rejected—ever. All of President Bush’s nominees were confirmed.
There are two good explanations for this: “senatorial courtesy,” and the “proper role” doctrine. The “proper role” doctrine observes that the senate is “obligated to confirm unless the nominee is manifestly lacking in character and competence.” This is very vague language, designed to give the president full autonomy in constructing his advisors. Unlike a judicial nomination, the cabinet positions customarily end with the president term. Moderate Republican Sen. Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island, told National Public Radio, regarding the infamous John Bolton nomination for US ambassador to te United Nations, "The president gets to choose his people.”
The tradition of “senatorial courtesy” defers preference to nominees from the home state of senators from the same party. Moreover, if the president has or anticipates confirmation troubles, he may circumvent the process through a “recess appointment” when the senate is adjourned between recesses. Recess appointments, dictated by the constitution, are to expire at the end of the following congressional session, but may expire earlier in certain specified circumstances. Regardless, the blocking of a recess appointment is rare even though the practice does engender outrage among opponents.
Another reason why bureaucrat cabinet members are easier to confirm is because they have more to offer senators, relative to judges. For example, California Democrat Barbara Boxer agreed to vote to confirm Stephen Johnson as head of the Environmental Protection Agency after he agreed to cancel a pesticide program. With the ability to grant promises on policy, cabinet nominees can use that leverage to persuade their detractors. Such quid pro quo arrangements would be inappropriate for an official theoretically responsible for interpreting law without overt partisan intensions.
Professor Nelson Polsby, a specialist in executive branch politics at UC Berkeley, observed that Presidents mold their administrations utilizing three particular and sometimes contradictory approaches: specialists, generalists, or coalition. Specialists posses technical mastery, generalists are selected because of their political or personal connection to the administration, and a coalition is a cabinet made up of individuals with diverse perspectives. President Bush’s cabinet is a combination of specialist and generalist. The administrations nominations demonstrate that they are most concerned with loyalty and uniformity; the administration is not interested in dissenting or alternative perspectives.
Second and mid tier cabinet positions are where political spoils are more likely to occur. The Senate receives thousands of nominations and more than 300 for the cabinet, and a thorough review of every nominee is unrealistic. In general, the Bush cabinet is not composed of unqualified directors waiting to perform what some in Washington call “a Michael Brown.” The website www.progressivegovernment.org lists all the cabinet members along with a brief summary of their background. One should observe, having in mind the “proper role” doctrine, that the nominees are typically able.
In constructing a cabinet the president is institutionally, but not constitutionally, given nearly absolute autonomy. As one of only two elected officials in the executive branch of government, the president is given a mandate (with restraints) to implement policies in which he or she campaigned, including the recruitment of people who will aid in these endeavors. For better or worse the president is responsive to ratings, re-election, and party restraints. If the president was to nominate an egregiously incompetent candidate, the senate is theoretically obligated to block his or her ascendancy. Checks and balances are at work, even if the occasional Michael Brown slips through the cracks.