Organizing a 'team of rivals' for Obama's cabinet sounds wrongheaded

I heard and read of this possibility. I hope he's not actually doing this.

I really don't see the value in having a cabinet of principals who don't share the President-elect's vision and ambition for the policy changes he's promised.

Anyone in favor of this approach?


Barack Obama has cited the book Team of Rivals by Doris Kearns Goodwin as a key text as he prepares for the White House. He says that it showed how President Lincoln brought former enemies into his administration because he “was confident enough to be willing to have these dissenting voices”.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/us_elections/article5157853.ece

to gain credibility among members of the Senate and House. Bill Clinton used Republicans in his cabinet to convince those Republicans in the House and Senate to go along with his foreign military ventures (i.e. Attacking Bin Laden).

However, Barack has a mandate to implement a progressive agenda and consequently should limit his rivals to only a couple of posts at most(i.e. Hagel for SOD).

I believe he generated a great deal of suspicion on both sides about his loyalties and motivations. I hated him at that post.

But, I take your point about a possible rationale.

If you think he's such an incompetent boob at picking his team, why did you vote for him?

You DID vote for him, didn't you?

Do you actually believe that our responsibility as citizens ends with our vote?

Although Obama seems pretty good at it, no one is perfect at seeing "all sides of an issue" and being able to foresee unwanted consequences and repercussions. Therefore, one needs as many different points of view as possible in order to be able to be aware of possible repercussions that they had not thought of.

That's why the Founding Fathers wanted a Legislature to debate issues before passing legislation.

To make a good example, Bush stocked his staff with "yes men", and everyone knows how that turned out.

No matter how wise a leader may be, he/she needs ADVISORS, not yes-men.

Any number of corporation heads have learned that to their cost. Sometimes it's completely killed the corporation. I worked for such a corporation, whose founder-CEO was an excellent visionary and engineer, but had a poor understanding of organizational dynamics.

The groups within the corporation spent all their time fighting for turf. They didn't put the whole corporation first, only their slice of it because their very jobs depended on the budget allocation for their slice. And since the winners had become winners by focusing on political power rather than on product, the corporation gradually became uncompetitive. Whereupon it was taken over and ceased to exist.

Setting up that kind of internal competition is a sure sign of someone with a tin ear for leadership.

I have not had the chance, have it on hold at the library...
but perhaps it offers some insight into his thinking behind this approach.

no, but I heard her talk about it. The upshot was that Lincoln had surrounded himself with folks who disagreed with him to keep him on his toes and provide balance and perspective outside of his own.

Reading anything about Lincoln is fascinating to me.

Lincoln did not surround himself with folks who disagreed with him. All in the cabinet were opposed to slavery. He was willing to work with political rivals - other leaders from the Republican party and Democrats - providing they were opposed to slavery.

What I described was her view of the cabinet choices Obama might make and what his criteria might be.

Lincoln did not let petty political rivalries - with Chase and Seward especially - nor political party affiliation - with Blair especially - stand in the way of putting together a team of the best people who were dedicated to the cause of opposing slavery. He did not merely slop together a bunch of talented people with a variety of political views for the sake of doing so, or for the sake solely of political advantage.

What is our over-riding and uncompromising stand? What is "the job" we are trying to "get done?" If the team is to be assembled of the most talented people without regard to their previous positions on any issues, then we either have no over-roding uncompromising stand, or it is not being overtly revealed.

It seems to me that activists supported Obama based largely on opposition to the war and opposition to the DLC, based on what they were saying during the primaries. If those are no longer to matter in the organizing of the administration, that is noteworthy. The general public voted Democratic because of their rejection of free market economics. If that is also not going to matter, that would be of interest as well.

Lincoln did bring rivals into his cabinet. Seward, Bates and Chase battled him for the Republican party nomination. Blair, Stanton and Wells were Democrats.

But they were all opposed to slavery. They were not really "dissenting voices." Lincoln would certainly not have brought Clement Vallandingham into his cabinet, for example, or sought to compromise with or work with any pro-slavery people or listened to their "dissenting voices."

What is the equivalent over-riding issue today? Rule by Wall Street? Aggressive imperialistic foreign policy? Free market economics?

What are the changes that are being promised, in your view?

Reaching out "across the aisle," or "transcending partisanship" merely for the sake of doing so is at best worthless and at worst disingenuous and dangerous. If there is nothing at stake, then what "change" do we expect? If there is something at stake, then what is it exactly?

Lincoln was unwilling to compromise on the issue of the expansion of slavery. What might it be that we are unwilling to compromise on? That is not clear to me.

I believe he wants to form a team that has common goals with conflicting views of how to achieve those goals.