Defense: It's for Democrats, Too!

To echo Ilan Goldenberg and Shawn Brimley, I think it would be a disaster for the next President to appoint a Republican as Secretary of Defense. The symbolism -- a combination of "Democrats can't handle defense" and "Democrats don't care about defense" -- just sucks.

In general, I'm not so high on the idea of appointing Republicans to anything, but you especially want to keep them away from the national security realm. Now it's a different matter to give an appointment to someone who's an ex-Republican (or willing to become one). Actual party switchers who are willing to publicly articulate a narrative about switching are a valuable commodity and people like that should be shoved out in front of the camera whenever it's plausible to do so.

Comments

Personally, I'd prefer to simply give these jobs to whomever is best qualified to fill them, regardless of party affiliation, but I'm also contemptably idealistic in this regard.

Posted by Andrew Lias | March 26, 2008 1:49 PM

Even an Anti war Rep. like Hagel?

Posted by Eric k | March 26, 2008 1:52 PM

The symbolism -- a combination of "Democrats can't handle defense" and "Democrats don't care about defense" -- just sucks.

Who cares about the g-d symbolism? Answer: the Democrats, for way too fucking long. When appearance trumps substance when it comes to national defense, we're in the shit.

I'm not suggesting the Republicans are the only ones who can do it, but if the CiC decides the best person happens to be one, so be it.

Posted by Jake | March 26, 2008 1:55 PM

I think this is a mistake, although it doesn't have to be secretary of defense. Foreign policy is an area in which there is so much room for backroom decision making (as the current administration has excelled at) that it is good to have someone in a real position of power who clearly would not support the kind of debacle in Iraq for partisan reasons. For that reason it is more important to have someone with some political distance from the President present at foreign policy meetings. (Although I suppose counting Lieberman as a Democrat might defeat this purpose).

For this reason Cohen was a good pick by Clinton. And I wish there had been a democratic equivalent in the Bush administration as it would have limited some of the venality of our current foreign policy. It would serve as well to appoint the republican to the NSC instead if one is afraid of the secretary of defense as its own fiefdom.

Posted by Lon | March 26, 2008 2:00 PM

There is something to be said for hiring the most competent person, rather than putting in a token member of the other major party. Bush's hiring of the Democrat Norm Mineta, who, psychologically scared by his ancestors experience in FDR's internment camps, refused to consider profiling of terrorists in airports, was clearly a bad idea.

But if Dems win in November and want a Republican in the Cabinet, they could do worse than keep Paulson at Treasury or Gates at Defense..

Posted by Fred | March 26, 2008 2:01 PM

How about Andrew Bacevich?

Posted by RickDFL | March 26, 2008 2:02 PM

Why appoint Republicans to anything when they can't even field candiates for previously Republican-held open congressional seats?

Posted by phil | March 26, 2008 2:05 PM

With all due respect, I think this is seriously wrong-headed.

In the run-up to American entry into World War II, FDR started bringing in Republicans into this foreign policy staff. Why? In order to empower internationalist Republicans (as against their isolationist counterparts) and to create a government of national unity.

The situation today is that the Republicans are the party of war and empire but some of their senior people (especially Hagel and many of the (people of the Bush 1989-1993 vintage) are unhappy with this. It would make great sense for President Obama or President H. Clinton to bring these people into the government: to give greater prominence and voice to sane Republicans, and to say that in a time of crisis we need national unity.

Hagel is a lot more rational than many pro-war Democrats (who are the type that might otherwise get these jobs).

Posted by Jeet Heer | March 26, 2008 2:08 PM

I'd appointed Maine's two Republican senators just to get them out of the Senate. I don't want to wait for them to get old and die to pick up those two seats.

Posted by chris | March 26, 2008 2:09 PM

As Jeet says - Chuck Hagel's instincts on national security seem considerably better than, say, Richard Holbrooke's.

Posted by John | March 26, 2008 2:11 PM

It may be wise to appoint republicans to various national security positions as a means of divide-and-conquer within the republican party. Appoint republicans who showed themselves willing to stand up against the neoconservative cult in the Bush white house and use them as leverage against those knee-jerk hawkish Republicans in congress who followed the bush administration off a cliff.

This is what Obama means by "coming together"-- coming together to cut off the balls of the malefactors within our own government.

Posted by Tyro | March 26, 2008 2:15 PM

If there is a particular individual whom a Democratic President admires to lead the Defense Department, and if that individual happens to be a Republican, yet in no way does this indicate some policymaking to the detriment of the President's aims, then it's fine.

If a Democratic President is counseled that he / she need nominate "a Republican" to lead defense, that's more hysterical nonsense about how a bunch of immature war-mongering non-serving fops get the reputation of being good or tough on defense simply because they have big mouths and shout about how much more they love the flag than someone else.

Posted by El Cid | March 26, 2008 2:16 PM

I agree with the most-qualified position. Certainly some Republicans are qualified. Nevertheless, I understand the "symbolism" (although that's not the word I would use). The Dems have a stigma of knowing nothing about defense, fair or not. Time to erase some of that stigma, although it might be at the expense of giving up a hard-fought Senate seat like Jim Webb's.

Posted by socctty | March 26, 2008 2:25 PM

Aren't you being a bit presumptuous?

Why would it be a disaster for John McCain to appoint a Republican as SecDef?

Posted by Beer Here | March 26, 2008 2:51 PM

I'm not strictly opposed to appointing Republicans to serve in areas where they are in line with Democrats, or more specifically, the Democratic president. However, I agree that doing so for SecDef at a time when Americans are finally questioning the Republicans' use of the military is probably not a good idea. Obama in particular is making the case that Republicans have mishandled the military and that, contrary to decades of CW, Democrats can actually serve the military better use by not getting into pointless wars, not using unaccountable private security firms, and by taking care of our soldiers and veterans. Also, Hagel, like Clinton, voted for the AUMF. I'm not sure how Obama can argue her vote showed poor judgment and Hagel's did not.

Posted by ibid | March 26, 2008 2:51 PM

Obama in particular is making the case that Republicans have mishandled the military

Well, Obama aside I think reality is making that case particularly well.

Posted by Stefan | March 26, 2008 3:01 PM

Presumptuous?

Aw, forget the Republicans; appoint a Klingon as SecDef -- or, their functional equivalent in reality, Sir John Bolton.

He's always wanted to wear a rubber headpiece and actually hit people with a club, anyway.

Posted by Anonymous | March 26, 2008 3:12 PM

Don't waste your time responding to the shrill GOPers. They just want to keep getting paid and will not move the progressive agenda forward. All they should get are appointments as Ambassadors to Gitmo or Leavenworth (orange jumpsuits, included).

Posted by CParis | March 26, 2008 3:15 PM

Why would it be a disaster for John McCain to appoint a Republican as SecDef?

Because it would be a disaster for John McCain to appoint anyone SecDef. Let me fix that; it would be a disaster for John McCain to appoint anyone to anything.

Posted by Rambuncle | March 26, 2008 3:17 PM

SecDef is far too important a position to simply play politics with, although I think Jeet Heer is exactly right that the "divide and conquer" politics makes a lot of sense if you've got a well-qualified candidate from the other party to begin with. In my view, it would be both smart policy and smart politics to leave Gates right where he is, at least well into the first term.

The sad truth is that Democrats' reputation as defense bunglers is firmly based in history. Bush's and Rumsfeld's ineptitude has gone far towards blurring this fact, but nearly every single Democrat president after FDR was responsible for major military fiascos. I think Clinton is the exception, but just barely as his lame response to Al Qaeda and the idiocy of gratuitously taking ground troops off the table in Kosovo were major blunders. His reputation is saved in my view by his courageous decision to rescue Bosnia without regard to EU and UN hand-wringing.

Posted by Robert Powell | March 26, 2008 3:42 PM

Sorry Jeet Heer, but this is a different political environment than in the runup to WWII.

I have to agree wholeheartedly with Yglesias here. Bringing in Republicans is a short term benefit, long term cost kind of move. You can't improve the Dem brand image by conceding that it sucks. This would make more sense if I thought Republicans have reasonable views about anything, or if I thought you could actually empower the anti-war part of the party. But neither of these holds. F*ck the Republicans.

Posted by mpowell | March 26, 2008 3:44 PM

Hagel's vastly preferable to some crypto-Zionist lurking in the DNC muck. It'd be a good move.

Posted by Trevor | March 26, 2008 6:49 PM

If Hagel isn't SecDef, he's retired at this point. Being SoD would allow him to remain relevant, so offering him the position if he at least becomes an independent is an option. However, I would like to see someone like Zinni get that appointment. If Webb gets the appointment, would there have to be a special election or would Kaine just appoint a new Democrat?

Posted by Reality Man | March 26, 2008 6:51 PM

Actions speak better than words.

Mr Obama choose Mr. Wright as his spiritual teacher for 20 years and included Mr. Wright in his election staff, these are the actions of Mr. Obama. When shocking hate messages began to flow from the mouth of Mr. Wright on television, hyperbole spin was written for Mr. Obama distancing Mr. Obama from Mr. Wright. The weird thing is, some people actually believe the spin written by Mr. Obama’s election machine. But regardless what Mr. Obama says, he chose Mr. Wright as his spiritual teacher for 20 years and added Mr. Wright to his election staff.

If you make the choice to listen and learn from Hitler every week over 20 years, do you expect me or any other rational being to believe that you wouldn’t be or want to be influenced by Hitler’s ideas? And what does that say of your personal integrity if you chose American hating Mr. Wright, or Mr. Hitler as your guide in life?

Action is the real measure of a person, not their words. We know who Mr. Obama is by his life and his teachers, not the words he spins. And we can only imagine the amount of hatred Mr. Obama will unleash once he achieves ultimate power. And woe be the whites, the poor, those of the Jewish faith and anyone else Mr. Obama thinks deserve retribution. Maybe I am wrong, but considering Mr. Obama’s past, is such a risk worth the gamble?

And also consider recent announcement that the chief of the firm involved in the State Department’s passport breach is one of Obama’s adviser. (And why is this not being discussed?) And that Obama has been caught lying about Rezko, regarding the amount of money Rezko gave him, and that Obama still hasn’t come clean about his Rezko land deal. Or further, how Mrs. Obama makes a phenomenal $317.000 a month at a hospital in Chicago that is famous for turning away the poor, especially the black poor.

If Obama were to become president, what would stop Mr. Obama from appointing Mr. Wright to his cabinet? And after Mr. Wright’s appointment, if anyone complained they would be called racist. And it seems as if this strategy - that it is racist to criticize a black man - is already in effect as Mr. Obama can do anything corrupt with minimal impunity by the public or the press. But if Hillary so much as sneezes, she is taken through the laundry and hung out to dry and then beaten some more. Such an obvious bias treatment towards Mr. Obama because of his race is racial discrimination. And I believe another reason why Mrs. Clinton is unfairly criticized to such an extreme is because a handful of powerful men in the media can’t stand the idea of a woman for president – likely a libido thing.

We should have as our country’s leader someone with wisdom and knowledge, whose goal is the selfless betterment of the world. We should not elect someone with a personal agenda of personal power or select them because of the fashionably of their race or the preference for a gender.

Obama is not old enough or experienced enough to take on the role of the president, and if had simple wisdom, instead of a misguided desire for power, he would know this.

Posted by Thomas Richards | March 27, 2008 1:05 AM

If the opposition to Obama expressed by Thomas Richards is typical, he's got this election in the bag. Unless, of course, "someone with wisdom and knowledge, whose goal is the selfless betterment of the world" shows up. Paging Jesus Christ!

Comparing Wright to Hitler is simply hilarious. What did he say anyway? That America is run by rich White people? OMG, the horror!

Posted by Robert Powell | March 27, 2008 2:59 AM

Obama will appoint Joe Biden as SoD. After all, he's articulate, clean and presents a good image.

Posted by El Grande | March 27, 2008 10:21 AM

Obama will appoint Joe Biden as SoD. After all, he's articulate, clean and presents a good image.

Posted by El Grande | March 27, 2008 10:22 AM