To what extent is the US Cabinet a "dignified" institution in US government?

Created by: Dulcimer
Created on: 19-01-15 17:50

View mindmap

To what extent is the US Cabinet a "dignified" institution in US government?
- 1867 book "The English Constitution"
  - Walter Bagehot talks about "efficient" and "dignified"
    - institutions of government
    - Efficient
      - those that actually do something to achieve a purpose
    - Dignified
      - More symbolic & could be constitutional artifact that's not used and not important, yet remains part of the political system
  - Some argue that the cabinet isn't an efficient institution of gov
    - For various reasons
    - others also believe it still has a purpose in modern times
- Dignified?
  - Constitution hasn't given the cabinet a specific role
    - Only as powerful as president allows it to be
      - flexibility= Cabinets influence ebbs and flows depending on the presidential status, insiders/ outsiders
        Usefulness of cabinet decreases as their term continues
        Ronald Reagan
        1st year = 36 Cabinet meetings
        
        4th year = 12
        
        Bill Clinton
        only 6 cabinet meetings
        
        Washington outsiders
        Bill Clinton
        only 6 cabinet meetings
        
        Governors, not career in congress or washington
        
        Initially= insecure, so consult more
        Eventually more secure and assert themselves
        
        George H. W. Bush
        49 meetings in his entire 4 year term
        
        average of 6 per year
        
        Insider
        Reagan's Vice president so not as dependent on cabinet
  - Called on only when needed
    - NOT WEEKLY LIKE UK
      - Because UK Cabinet under Prime Minister is theoretically
        Primus inter pares
      - US
        Cabinet under, the president
        President is very much
        Primus
      - Members of US Cabinet, unlike UK not considered to be a political threat to the president
        In UK
        any of cabinet, even those heading unimportant departments e.g. Culture, Media and Sport
        could theoretically pose a threat
        
        President's can't be overthrown in the way Margaret Thatcher was
        
        However
        Cabinet member looking for premiership
        Have to challenge current leader in a leadership eleceticon
        As they're all drawn from the legislature
        So, theoretically equals
        Meaning there's a heightened risk to the primeminister
        
        US
        ONLY way cabinet members can become presidents themselves is by waiting for the president or next in succession to die
        e.g.
        Janet Napolitano, Secretary for Homeland Security
        last in line of succession, as department only recently founded in 2002
        ONLY BECOME PRESIDENT IF LOTS OF PEOPLE DIED
        
        Therefore potential of Cabinet secretaries to be a threat is limited
        Most aren't career politicians or interested in becoming the president, they prefer to stay where they are and head of their department
        
        BEING A CABINET MEMBER IS NOT CONSIDERED A ROUTE TO PRESIDENCY
        Considered routes = vice president, senator, congressman or governor
        Routes= acceptable bec. provide executive and legislative experience
        valuable to a prospective president
        
        Being a Cabinet Secretary
        note the word secretary, it implies they are only administrators, not powerful individuals
        
        neither form of experience provided
        
        if president threatened by anyone in the cabinet, they can't progress and they're likely to know this
        
        Last president who was previously a Cabinet Secretary was Herbert Hoover (1929-33)
        Secretary of Commerce
  - Cabinets role in government, superseded by the EXOP
    - The Executive Office to the President
    - Formed by Franklin D. Roosevelt
      - Following Brownlow Report of 1937
        "The President needs help"
      - Of course help could be given by the cabinet
        But, perhaps the president pictured a more partisan and personal body to solicit advice
    - More likelier to consider the political implications to the president as well as logistical issues and other problems
      - Marginalisation has become more apparent
        esp. with Nixon and Bush Sr. administrations
        Nixon actively prevented cabinet secretaries from having meetings with him
        
        Bush Sr.'s Chief of staff John Sununu held such influence with the President and his schedule that he often to as the "Deputy President"
        
        Consequently, Cabinet neutered essentially to a collection of people with no real power outside their departments
        No influence on pres, means they're expected to just go along with presidential decision
        Bush Sr, puts it "When I make a call, we move as a team"
        
        HOWEVER
        This doesn't mean a sense of collective ministerial responsibility exists in US gov.
        While, in UK, it's generally the policy(except when free votes and some coalitions)
        to support a decision or resign from government
        
        US, different
        Cabinet secretaries can feel free to object
        However, their objection = meaningless, as const. vests all executive power in the pres. and cabinet has no defined legal status or powers
        or indeed accountability from congress
        
        Secretaries often disagree
        That doesn't mean anything significant other than media fodder if row is public
        
        1960s Defence Secretary Robert McNamara and Secretary of State Dean Rusk
        Clashed publicly over the vietnam war
        neither forced to resign over it
        
        if in uk it would be impossible
        dissenting minister would be forced to resign for deviating from collective responsibility
        
        Malcom Walles
        in us "no party pressures to induce a sense of collectivity and no electoral demands to impose and outward unity"
- Cabinet is efficient
  - heads of the 15 cabinet departments are actually policy specialists
    - have experience of general activities in their department
      - Eric Shinseki, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs
        Four star general in the US Army
        Knowledge of what it's like to be a veteran & soldier so can direct department better than a generalist
    - Energy Secretary
      - Steven Chu
        Academic with experience of energy methods
        
        And other related things
    - UK comparison
      - Cabinet member generalists and some are often reshuffled to other departments
      - But it can be said with some merit that their ability to manage the Environment portfolio better than they might have done with Northern Ireland, as in the case of Owen Patterson
  - Some presidents, use Cabinet meetings as a way for them to disseminate and gather information
    - make sure Cabinet Secretaries, some which may have 'gone native'
      - are aware of President's legislative and departmental priorities
        and ensure they do their best to make sure it happens
    - President can also simply go around the table asking cabinet members what is going on in their departments
      - President Carter ( 1977- 81) was a particular fan of this
        Cabinet meetings usually involved the president going clockwise (next time, anticlockwise)
        Round the table
        
        they can keep abreast of each other's news
        if cabinet was dignified, there would be no need for this
        bother showing up
        
        So must be relevant and efficient
    - Some pres. use Cabinet meetings as a forum to discuss policy
      - Depends on president
      - But when used this way it is effiecient
    - UK comparison
      - Cabinet essentially a policy forum
        providing opinions to the prime minister
        but they might not be heeded
        Like in US with Cabinet secretaries
        
        policy meetings of the Cabinet can get rather heated
        Reagan's Defense Secretary
        Frank Carlucci
        remembered 'that Cabinet meetings were often vigorous, such as the one on the pros and cons of building the Russian oil pipeline - it was quite a shouting match"
  - Even if Cabinet as an entity is less efficient than it could be, individual Cabinet secretaries can hold considerable influence and importance to particular presidents
    - Secretaries wouldn't be heads of departments e.g. Housing and Urban Development
      - however, in the wider scheme of things they are unimportant
    - Ones holding greater influence, usually those holding one of the primary offices of the Cabinet
      - e.g. Hilary Clinton held considerable influence with Barack Obama
      - These secretaries generally hold importance for their position
        Defense secretary would be important at times of war for instance
    - Therefore, aspects of the cabinet can remain efficient, even in times when the President maintains separation with the Cabinet
      - these secretaries can provide advice also, even if the EXOP are competing with them in that regard
- Conclusion
  - Cabinet is more dignified than efficient
    - main problems twofold
      - const. never gave cabinet constitutional status or defined roles, as it has done with 3 arms of government
        Cabinet's power is highly erratic and its use fluctuates over time with every president
        Depends on whether they're washington insiders or outsiders
      - much of Cabinet's former unofficial role has been superseded by EXOP
        in particular the white house office
        Daniel Moynihan
        "Never underestimate the power of proximity"
        
        On west wing, so have constant links and communication with the president
        Heads of Cabinet departments much further away
        Less influence and chance to talk to the president
        
        EXOP CAN'T GO NATIVE
        Therefore, EXOP will always have the President's personal and political interests at heart when it comes to policy
    - No fixed role, can only be dignified
  - However cabinet is efficient in some ways
    - can be used to discuss policy and keep them aware of the President's priorities for their department
      - Useful in early stages of the presidency
    - Specialists
      - particular expertise in a field
        valuable to the smooth running of government
        
        able to give insightful advice if asked for
    - Work with members of the EXOP in Cabinet Councils
      - prevents rivalry in the two bodies
  - On the whole, it wouldn't be unsafe to say that the cabinet is not really efficient and has become more dignified and oriental as of late
    - even if some senior cab. sec. can be useful to the pres.
      - Cabinet as a whole not strong and usually ignored

Get Revising

To what extent is the US Cabinet a "dignified" institution in US government?

Comments

Similar Government & Politics resources: