Clinton at State, Gates to Stay Put

I haven’t really had a whole lot to say about politics in the last couple of weeks. I’ve never heard of the vast majority of the people the Obama administration will be made up of. It seemed kind of silly to pretend like I had much of an opinion on exactly what’s going into the new government. I voted for Obama, he got elected: it only seems fair that he should get a chance to actually start governing before I begin complaining too much.

Of course, the big news of the last couple weeks is the slow motion dance that Obama and Hillary Clinton have been engaged in. I’m glad that particular story has finally come to its conclusion. I don’t have any real strong feelings about this, either, although it puzzles me on Clinton’s part: giving up a Senate seat she could have held for life to take up a cabinet post that will last only a presidential term, if that, seems like an odd decision. But I don’t make her choices for her. While Clinton and Obama had their disagreements about foreign policy during the campaign, there really wasn’t a whole lot of difference between the two – and I doubt that Clinton is going to be running her own show. Obama is still going to call the shots. Still: eh. I can’t really summon much enthusiasm for the pick, one way or the other.

Keeping on Gates, though, is I think a thornier issue. I’ve heard the argument that the military is comfortable with Gates, that it’s a tiny bit of compromise towards Republicans and might allow some of the more realistically-minded Republicans to reach across the aisle and work with Obama instead of just obstructing until they get another chance to reduce the Democratic majorities in the Congress.

Fair enough, I suppose, and I won’t say the argument doesn’t have a certain internal logic to it. What bothers me is the idea this reinforces, that the military is more comfortable with Republican figures than Democrats. That meme, whether it’s real or exists purely in the media imagination, is a dangerous one. Obama, and progressives more broadly, need to make sure that we move the country away from that idea. If Gates can act as a transitional figure to a progressive voice that’s acceptable with the military establishment, that’s great. We need to see an end to the idea of conservatives as the big, tough warriors who will keep us pony-tailed, Volvo-driving, NPR-listening liberals safe while we go on and on about domestic issues.

Meanwhile, speaking of NPR, where’s my canvas tote? I need to get down to the farmer’s market to grab some arugula.

Obama and Gates

David Ignatius in the Washington Post discusses a role for Defense Secretary Robert Gates in a potential Obama Administration. Matt Yglesias has what I think of as the definitive take on this talk of Obama keeping Gates on as a move toward bi-partisan reconciliation, saying essentially that keeping on Gates reinforces the notion that Democrats are inherently weak on national security issues. Obviously, this is an idea of recent, post Vietnam coinage, and I think it’s one that an Obama Administration should be anxious to put to bed. However, Ignatius is recommending something else: instead of keeping Gates on at the Pentagon, he recommends putting Gates in charge of a commission to reform the intelligence community (for real, this time).

Why not appoint Gates to head a special commission to revise the basic framework of the National Security Act of 1947? He knows all the pieces of this puzzle -- having run the CIA and worked at the National Security Council earlier in his career.

Certainly, Gates’ predecessor has allowed him to look almost messianic in comparison, and he has been doing a competent job with the post. In particular, his efforts to reform the Air Force seem like an encouraging development. I can certainly see why Obama would want to include Gates in a commission of this sort. But once again, Obama needs to emphasize that it’s not just Republicans who can deal with national security.

Creating a Gates Commission certainly has appeal if you believe bipartisanship to be an unmitigated good. I’m not so sure that that’s so. Good policy and good government simply does not always require that a Republican and a Democrat need to be in the room together at the same time. It certainly can’t hurt, but I don’t think it’s always a good if it continues to reinforce a negative, destructive narrative.