Change?
It is really kind of fun to watch the liberal left partake in self-flagellation about Barack Obama’s picks for his cabinet. Between that and the discussions in the TV media about what should Barack Obama be doing in each crisis, who is really in charge, he or President Bush, the fun just never stops. But let’s start with the “kids” and their claims of betrayal of his message of change.
The Daily Kos, Olbermann, Maddow, and others have expressed real fears that through Barrack Obama’s choices in old Clinton hands he is reinventing the past instead of creating real change for the future. He seemed to have sent them over the top when he decided to keep Bill Gates on as Secretary of Defense. To the first, if you are a Democrat who has any experience the federal government, you would have been part of the Clinton administration. Does that mean you are a Clintonite? Hardly. It may mean that you worked, you observed, you learned, and you now want change. If you don’t believe that, consider why so many of Bill Clinton’s people supported Barack in the primaries. But more important, who would know best how to change an organization as large as the federal government than those who know how it works?
Specifically to the choice of Bill Gates for Secretary of Defense; what the “kids” are missing is that in large organizations, change really doesn’t come from the top. There are a million ways to sabotage change in the federal government from the minions who work in its labyrinth bowels. So if you send the new kid on the block in to turn the ship around, he gets thwarted at every step of the way just because he is the new kid and doesn’t appreciate the institution. But if you selected an old hand who is respected throughout the organization, then his visions of change are much more likely to be accepted and internalized. It is true that Bill Gates has carried Bush’s water, but he also has represented an organization that knows they are overstretched and needs to disengage from Iraq. He is more likely than anyone to start a real realignment of the Military. It also sends an important message to the world that the Department of Defense will not be in chaos as we have a change in leadership. We are going to disengage from Iraq, and we are going to rethink our approach to Afghanistan, but it will be done with a continuity of leadership. Remember, Mr. Gates thinks we ought to close Guantanamo, negotiate with Iran, and he has started the military on a process of thinking about their future roles.
What Barack is demonstrating in these picks is not the mistake of the Bushies, ideology and loyalty, but in competence and pragmatism. Those of you who lament the failure to pick new progressives for these posts are making the same mistake as your archenemy the Bush Administration, choosing ideology over competence. The solutions of the future are not conservative or progressive (although most conservative solutions of the past have proven at best ineffective, at worst destructive), but what works. Rejoice in the fact that Barack gets this and is picking people who have the best chance of carrying out his policies within the Federal government. As he said on Wednesday, it’s his vision and their job to carry it out.
Now to the question of who is in charge, it is George Bush you nitwits. We only have one President at a time who has their hands on the levers of power. So while Barack Obama can sooth fickle markets with words and picks for his advisors and cabinet, it is only the hope for the future that he can manipulate. What is actually done in the present is all up to President Moron. And by the way, while all of you are now admiring his wonderful demeanor in the handover, you are ignoring what is going on out of sight in changes in regulations, opening up national parks to exploitation, secunding conservative lackeys into civil service to thwart progressive change, and pardons. He is who he is and that is an unrepentant conservative who in the face of total failure of his philosophy, blithely continues to pursue it. Don’t ever turn your back on this group of jackals.
The one thing I will agree with the progressives about is the concern that we may let the torture issue slide by not investigating and prosecuting those that broke the law. I understand the logic in that we need to end it and heal, but we also need a reckoning to face what we actually did. This means an in-depth investigation to expose to the doubters in the United States just exactly what was done. The decision about legal liability will come later, but the focus should be on those who authorized it and knew better, not those who thought they were carrying out legal orders of our Commander-in-Chief. We committed some horrible atrocities and we need to look it in the face so we can recognize our failures and learn from our foolishness. Sometimes healing requires facing a great deal of pain. Hopefully Barack will understand that we must face our demons to rid ourselves from them.