On Obama's Team of Rivals

After Barack Obama's historic election victory, the media have switched from dissecting polls and envisioning plausible paths to 270 to speculating about his cabinet appointees. Much attention has been paid to the "team of rivals" concept Obama claimed to want to emulate. This approach to governance was popularized by President Lincoln and involves turning defeated and potential rivals into allies by appointing them to White House and other senior-level positions.

Partisan Democrats hoping for President-elect Obama to solely tap loyal Democrats for his administration and ram through strongly Democratic policies may be disappointed by his bipartisan overtures, but Obama may stand to benefit more from this approach to governance than he would if he simply stocked his White House with liberal Democrats whose loyalty to him did not waver during the campaign.

There are several advantages to including political rivals in Obama's cabinet. First of all, it forces his rivals to become political partners and cease being political competitors. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, for example, cannot filibuster President Obama's legislation in the Senate. Advisor John McCain cannot badmouth President Obama the way Republican Senator John McCain can. A Republican who is defending Obama's administration is one less Republican who is criticizing it.

Secondly, a bipartisan team of rivals means that both political parties would share political successes and failures in Obama's administration. Republicans are currently locked out of power in Washington. As the minority party with little accountability, they don't have to do much more than take potshots at Obama and the Democrats. But with a bipartisan Obama White House, Republicans would have to be more selective with their criticisms because they may end up politically wounding popular members of their own party.

Obama campaigned on the themes of change and bipartisanship. Including Republicans and rival Democrats in his administration would show that he is delivering on this campaign promise. Voters' trust is the most precious resource Obama has. Keeping this campaign promise would keep this trust from being squandered. And it would stand in stark contrast to the hyperpartisanship that has characterized Washington for the past 10-15 years. And if Republicans refuse to join Obama's administration, they would be the ones who looked like they weren't being bipartisan. Having everyone serve together would also reinforce the idea that in these difficult and uncertain economic times, Americans of all political persuasions are all in this situation together. That could be a political boon to Obama because voters are more likely to support or trust a cause or an administration if they believe they have a stake in it.

One more benefit of tapping Republicans to serve in Obama's administration is that it could be a backdoor way of increasing Democratic majorities, particularly in the Senate. If Obama tapped McCain to be Secretary of Defense or Secretary of Homeland Security, for example, McCain would have to relinquish his Senate seat. Arizona Governor Janet Napolitano, a Democrat, would then be responsible for appointing his successor. Oregon Senator Gordon Smith would have been another potential appointee, but he lost his reelection bid to Democratic challenger Jeff Merkley.

Additionally, keeping Republicans in the White House would help prevent Obama and his Democratic allies from veering too far to the left. Republicans are hoping that President-elect Obama and congressional Democrats overreach by enacting policies that are too far to the left. This is not to say that left-wing policies are bad. However, Obama and the Democrats are more likely to have an extended grip on power if they are more gradual in their approach.

Liberalism is still a dirty political word (note how many liberals define themselves as "progressives"), so if voters have their fears of a "radical leftist agenda" confirmed by Democrats' overreach, Republicans will hasten their return to political competitiveness in 2010. Conservatism currently has a black eye even if Bush is not a true conservative as Republicans claim, so this is a good opportunity for liberalism to be redefined for an electorate whose memories of the Democratic policies of the 1960s are increasingly hazy.

But because the past few years have been characterized by political gridlock, it may very well turn out that voters don't really care as much about liberal government or conservative government, but rather competent and efficient government. And that is the opportunity for President-elect Obama and congressional Democrats. If Democrats (and liberals by extension) are able to deliver meaningful results for the public, that will do far more to burnish their image and strengthen their political hand than any bit of political sloganeering.