One of the smartest things the Obama camp did during the election was figure out how to top the Karl Rove, grass-roots Republican machine. From my own experience, I can say that going to a place with lots of other people who think the same way as you, who want the same election result you do, makes you that much more sure of yourself and that much more willing to volunteer.
The Bush Administration, in turn, laid an excellent groundwork of how not to run the country. Even then, there are still some good lessons in success to take from them, two of which I lay out here as Obama prepares to select his cabinet:
- Avoid politicians for State and Defense.
A handful of years ago, I had the opportunity to talk with one of Condoleezza Rice's close, left-leaning colleagues who, several years before me, had the same college adviser. While he said that he and Rice often disagreed, he also said she was brilliant, and the two had continued to use each other as a sounding board while she was in the Bush Administration. But what really resonated was a comment that she was a good soldier: in her heart, she is very much an academic, someone used to thinking up ideas rather than making decisions.
Compare this with her predecessor at State, Colin Powell, who is known as being a "good soldier." In essence, for eight years, the Bush Administration has had two absolutely brilliant individuals in the highest-ranking cabinet position who, for varying reasons, were willing to go along with the party line. To this day, I do wish we had the opportunity to see both of them with more competent administrations: I think we would have seen drastically different State Departments (and, truthfully, this is more so with Powell than Rice).
The Obama Administration could learn something from this: for your powerful offices, pick people who have a ton of relevant experience but are used to being "good soldiers" and not looking at their own careers when making decisions or advising. Consider this: if Powell had been gunning for a run at the Presidency in 2008, how differently do you think he would have acted in the State Department? Do you think he would have quietly left the arena, or would he have been more aggressive in criticizing the administration and making his own opinion heard?
Now, personally, I think Powell speaking up would have been better for America (and it remains one of my few criticisms of the former general). However, it was best for the Bush Administration and for enabling them to achieve their goals in the international arena for him to be silent. Those goals may have been, to be blunt, wrong, but for eight years, they have had competent individuals willing to put those goals into action, largely because that was what the White House wanted.
That's something the Obama Administration should take to heart: politicians (except maybe those at the end of their careers, such as Biden) are not the best choices for cabinet positions, especially powerful cabinet positions. They have their own careers and interests to look out for and those may go against the Presidents'. Instead, pick smart, lifelong civil servants who will do what the President wants and will, to some extent, blindly follow the goals set by the President.
- Never confuse politicians with diplomats.
This is closely related to the above point, but it still bears mentioning. It's a fine line, to be sure, but a politician will sweet talk his way into getting what he wants, and a diplomat will convince you that you want what he wants. Put another way: a politician will harness anger and use it as a means while a diplomat sees ending anger and hostility as the goal.
Ideally, a president should want a lot of diplomats on in his cabinet. That is not to say you do not want politicians in the White House (which is where Rahm Emanuel's appointment as chief of staff succeeds) more that you want them in key positions and used sparingly. The President is, after all, the country's Politician-in-Chief and he needs a bunch of diplomats supporting him. Too many politicians makes it difficult to deliver a clear message.
On a side note, this is where I think the McCain campaign stumbled: they appointed someone even more political than McCain for the VP spot. Palin is the ultimate politician, and I do not think she was capable of stepping back and coming across as a diplomat as Biden did. I would even say that hurt McCain as much, if not more, than her lack of experience or basic knowledge.
President-elect Obama especially needs diplomats: there is a tremendous amount of anger in this country, and he recognized it but turned it into a positive, into a "Yes We Can," hope-based platform. Appointing "diplomat"-types to his Cabinet will enable him to continue this theme into his presidency and, more importantly, allow him to determine how to direct the nation's continuing anger to supporting his own goals.
The Bush Administration succeeded in finding individuals willing to support the President. Where they stumbled, of course, was in the execution of their goals and policies. Following the Bush Administration's pattern of appointing smart, experienced diplomats but with an effective policy that is in the best interests of the country would make the Obama Administration an extremely powerful force.
[Note: This is taken from my personal blog, The Reformed Republican, wherein I try to use my own experience with the Republican Party to highlight what lessons the Democrats can learn in order to avoid the pitfalls that befell the Republicans over the past eight years.]