Andrew Jackson sought the advice of his 'Kitchen Cabinet.' John F. Kennedy made his brother attorney general. Bill Clinton put Hillary at the helm of the Task Force on National Health Care Reform. Every president can be counted on to ensure those nearest to him before entering the White House remain close, loyal advisers. George W. Bush has perfected the art'for better and worse.
The nomination of White House counsel Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court and the public demise of Federal Emergency Management Agency chief Michael Brown has put political patronage under scrutiny. However, the vast and influential 'Texas Cabinet' the president has maintained has largely gone unabashed for years. However, a tipping point may be drawing near.
Some call it cronyism'others, hackocracy. Regardless, it is clear to any observer'Republican or Democrat, conservative or liberal, soccer mom or NASCAR dad'that many a Bush Administration official has gained a position of national responsibility because of their good-ol'-boy or gal political connection to the former Texas governor. Many have been associated with the president for 10 or 15 years'they are his most trusted friends.
For instance, the White House inner-circle is largely a transplant of the Bush governor's office'Miers, strategist Karl Rove, counselor Dan Bartlett and spokesperson Scott McClellan. In these appointments, competence and the confidence of the public are not criteria'they do not have to be. Bush, like any other leader, is able to surround himself with those who understand him best and whom he trusts to carry out the important work of the presidency. As is seen in the CIA leak investigation fallout, perhaps competence was indeed not taken into account when hiring White House assistants.
On the other hand, when any president decides to put his friends into the line of presidential succession'or on the Supreme Court'it must be the nation's priority to scrutinize the appointment. To lead a federal department or agency, an appointee must exhibit the specialized knowledge and abilities necessary to perform the given task. Cowboy boots and a ten-gallon hat are no longer applicable.
As Boston University professor Randy Barnett pointed out in the Wall Street Journal following Miers' nomination, Alexander Hamilton's Federalist No. 76 explicitly addresses the role of the Senate'acting on behalf of the people'in checking presidential favoritism.
'[The president] would be both ashamed and afraid to bring forward, for the most distinguished or lucrative stations,' wrote Hamilton, 'candidates who had no other merit than that of coming from the same State to which he particularly belonged, or of being in some way or other personally allied to him, or of possessing the necessary insignificance and pliancy to render them the obsequious instruments of his pleasure.'
Clearly, one of the Senate's most sacred roles is to safeguard the government from politcal cronies. They failed to do so by confirming Brown'??not from Texas, for the record'??and will fail again if Meirs is confirmed as an associate justice.
Ambassador Karen Hughes, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings are also Texans who were once top White House aides but have since been rewarded for their loyalty. These individuals had varying levels of credentials, but heretofore have proven to be effective in their new roles??. Yet, the Senate and public must be vigilant in assessing the performance of political appointees??, especially those with close ties to the president.
Being the president's friend does not qualify anyone for a position of national significance. Conversely, the president's friends should not be disqualifed for the same reason. However, presidential friends should invite greater public scrutiny so as to prove their loyalty to country and not just the president.
