proposing that sort of a shadow government <\/a>as part of the Dems’ race for the White House. The idea is, once it’s clear who’s going to be the Democratic nominee (after, say Super Tuesday), everyone else falls in line, the nominee announces his\/her major cabinet choices, and you end up with (in theory) an array of subject matter experts ready to address all of the Administration’s people one-on-one. It’s not, say, Dean taking on Bush and Cheney and Rumsfeld and Powell, but Dean taking on Bush, and Clark (as shadow Sec’y of Defense) taking on Rumsfeld, and whomever Dean taps to be his Sec’y of State going up against Powell, etc.<\/p>\nThe advantages are obvious and attractive. One of them is numbers, of course (and imagine a series of debates not just between the presidential candidates, but between their administration counterparts — and not just formal debates, but obligatory head-knocking on “Meet the Press” and the like). <\/p>\n
More importantly, though, it would provide (require developing) a coherent policy structure. While the primaries have tended to be “Hey, I’m running for President because I’m against everything George Bush is doing,” a setup like this would let the Dems demonstrate what they are for<\/i>, not just against. It would let them discuss in detail how they would be actually handling matters, would present a full and multi-faceted alternative to the current Administration.<\/p>\n
But it’s probably unlikely to happen, for a variety of reasons. First off, given the primaries run-up, it’s a big start from square one. Even assuming that the nominee has a coherent and presentable policy framework, and can find people (amid the defeated contenders and outside of them) to support it, it’s going to take a lot of time to get that developed. An elected president has a couple of months of relatively free time to do it, and even then it can take up to a year to really get things together; a competing nominee would have to put something together from relative scratch in days, because s\/he would still be having to deal with further primaries and with the actual election campaign.<\/p>\n
Secondly, unless a lot of expensive and thorough vetting is done beforehand, an attempt to define a shadow cabinet is going to almost certainly bring in some folks with unknown but exploitable flaws. Look at the troubles that candidates have had with their VP picks in the past; multiply that by five or six, and you’ll almost certainly end up with someone with a hidden drinking problem, a criminal record, some shady financial dealings, or just some lame-o ideas that the other side can exploit. It’s not just that you’re adding to your own numbers, but you’re adding to your enemy’s targets — and a single, fat target brought down can bring down a whole campaign.<\/p>\n
Again, the elected president had time to select these folks, and has folks willing to commit to the already-won cause when asked. There’s time for extensive background checks and reviews and winnowing of candidates — and even then sometimes slip-ups do occur. The Democratic nominee would certainly have the same problems, but with no time to pre-screen them.<\/p>\n
Unless, of course, s\/he relied upon fellow party contenders, on the assumption that most of the ghosts have been searched out of their closets. That may or may not be a good assumption, but it’s unlikely that more than a couple of the contenders would settle for a shadow cabinet post, even assuming the nominee wanted them there.<\/p>\n
Which is also a good point. Nobody “runs” for Secretary of Defense, or Energy, or State. Heck, nobody actually “runs” for Vice President — it’s just part of the package that comes about after there’s only one winner on the field, the presidential nominee. People talk about Clark, for example, as a good Defense Secretary candidate — but that’s not what he’s (ostensibly) running for, and it’s not at all clear that’s what he’s interested in. The long-term vetting and setting of party policy, policy leadership, and party leadership is just not something we in the US do, and in fact seems incompatible with our current electoral and party setup. <\/p>\n
And, finally, one unintended consequence of this may be the further sound-bite-ization of the federal government. Cabinet secretaries have to be presentable in public, of course, and act as public advocates for the Administration’s policy. That doesn’t necessarily make them good campaigners, and turning an election into referendum on not just the presidential candidates but all of his\/her cabinet choices might cause the presidential runner to emphasize traits and abilities that aren’t necessarily the same as what you want from a cabinet secretary. I don’t know if that’s been the case in the UK — but, then, in the UK, you aren’t necessarily voting for the PM (and his cabinet) directly, but for your local MP.<\/p>\n
In short, while the idea has some promising features, it’s not something that fits into the timing and nature of American politics. Maybe I’m not thinking outside the box enough, and maybe as an alternative strategy it might be the Dems’ only chance against the White House in 2004. But even if it happens, I suspect it would be a one-shot deal, as it carries at least as many risks as it does advantages.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
In the UK, the Opposition Party has what is known as the Shadow Cabinet. Since (in their Parliamentary system) the Prime Minister is simply the leader of the majority party,…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_seopress_robots_primary_cat":"","_seopress_titles_title":"","_seopress_titles_desc":"","_seopress_robots_index":"","_seopress_analysis_target_kw":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":false,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2}},"categories":[9],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-5027","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-politics-law"],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":133183,"url":"https:\/\/hill-kleerup.org\/blog\/2017\/03\/31\/party-majorities-as-minority-coalitions.html","url_meta":{"origin":5027,"position":0},"title":"Party majorities as minority coalitions","author":"***Dave","date":"Fri 31-Mar-17 10:44am","format":false,"excerpt":"The article is correct in noting that, at least in some areas, the GOP majority in the House (and Senate) are less solid than the simple numbers and red-vs-blue maps make them seem, as the AHCA debacle demonstrates. There are multiple and fluid subgroups within the Republican party that make\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "~PlusPosts"","block_context":{"text":"~PlusPosts","link":"https:\/\/hill-kleerup.org\/blog\/category\/blogging\/plusposts"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":130402,"url":"https:\/\/hill-kleerup.org\/blog\/2016\/04\/11\/paul-ryan-is-running-for-shadow-president.html","url_meta":{"origin":5027,"position":1},"title":"Paul Ryan is running for Shadow President","author":"***Dave","date":"Mon 11-Apr-16 3:06pm","format":false,"excerpt":"Ryan has made it clear he's not going to run for President (though if drafted by the GOP Convention I suspect he might do it -- see Rachel Maddow last Friday, http:\/\/on.msnbc.com\/1oKqOVa). But as Speaker of the House he seems to be positioning himself as the public face of the\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "~PlusPosts"","block_context":{"text":"~PlusPosts","link":"https:\/\/hill-kleerup.org\/blog\/category\/blogging\/plusposts"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":39492,"url":"https:\/\/hill-kleerup.org\/blog\/2013\/11\/01\/who-is-the-leader-of-the-republican-party.html","url_meta":{"origin":5027,"position":2},"title":"Who is the leader of the Republican Party?","author":"***Dave","date":"Fri 1-Nov-13 12:51pm","format":false,"excerpt":"My immediate reaction to Cruz in the role\u00a0was \"Good Lord.\"But then I looked at the article, and that headline is just plain wrong. A small (and narrow) plurality of Republicans consider Ted Cruz as the GOP leader.'Twenty-one percent chose Cruz, 17 percent chose New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie (R) and\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "~PlusPosts"","block_context":{"text":"~PlusPosts","link":"https:\/\/hill-kleerup.org\/blog\/category\/blogging\/plusposts"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":25497,"url":"https:\/\/hill-kleerup.org\/blog\/2012\/01\/17\/biggest-minority-ever.html","url_meta":{"origin":5027,"position":3},"title":"Biggest. Minority. EVER","author":"***Dave","date":"Tue 17-Jan-12 9:43am","format":false,"excerpt":"Christians are, of course, hardly a minority in this country. Depending on the stats you choose, 75-80% of Americans identify as Christian. So for Christians to speak of themselves as a \"minority\" is disingenuous at best, and more likely a tribalist circle-the-wagons call-to-arms us-vs-them pity-the-poor-martyrs game.Unless, of course, Scott's talking\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "~PlusPosts"","block_context":{"text":"~PlusPosts","link":"https:\/\/hill-kleerup.org\/blog\/category\/blogging\/plusposts"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":13510,"url":"https:\/\/hill-kleerup.org\/blog\/2008\/11\/26\/the_family_research_counc.html","url_meta":{"origin":5027,"position":4},"title":"The Family Research Council leans on the GOP","author":"***Dave","date":"Wed 26-Nov-08 11:27am","format":false,"excerpt":"\"Leans\" from a mobster point of view, that is. After discovering that Pete Sessions, new head of the National Republican Congressional Committee, had the audacity to meet with the (gasp)...","rel":"","context":"In "LGBTQ &c"","block_context":{"text":"LGBTQ &c","link":"https:\/\/hill-kleerup.org\/blog\/category\/gay-stuff"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":33927,"url":"https:\/\/hill-kleerup.org\/blog\/2013\/05\/18\/profiling-vs-neutrality.html","url_meta":{"origin":5027,"position":5},"title":"Profiling vs. Neutrality","author":"***Dave","date":"Sat 18-May-13 9:36am","format":false,"excerpt":"It has occured to me several times\u00a0that a lot of the debate happening over the whole IRS501c4TeaPartyGate thing is like the issue of security profiling against terrorists. \u00a0\"We should focus security screening on young Islamic males. That's where we've had most terrorist attacks from.\"\"But we can't just assume that's the\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "~PlusPosts"","block_context":{"text":"~PlusPosts","link":"https:\/\/hill-kleerup.org\/blog\/category\/blogging\/plusposts"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]}],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/hill-kleerup.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5027","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/hill-kleerup.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/hill-kleerup.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/hill-kleerup.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/hill-kleerup.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=5027"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/hill-kleerup.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5027\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/hill-kleerup.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=5027"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/hill-kleerup.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=5027"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/hill-kleerup.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=5027"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}