# Cabinet question **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [February 16, 2017, 6:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cabinet-question/779992 "2017-02-16T18:08:34Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 3\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_other_waldo_pepper/32/12370_2.png) [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Other_Waldo_Pepper)\ **Post date:** [February 20, 2017, 11:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cabinet-question/779992/41 "2017-02-20T11:22:51Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > I think the decisions usually flow the other way. The President sets a policy like “We want NATO countries to increase their defense spending” and then he tells the Secretary of State to handle the details of making the policy happen. > > Without a cabinet, the President will be making decisions and setting policy but they’re won’t be anyone to translate those decisions and policies into action. See, what I’d thought was, in a situation where the President (a) makes decisions and sets policy, and then (b) tells a Secretary to handle the details of making the policy happen, the Secretary – really just tells a Deputy Secretary to handle the details of making it happen, translating decisions and policies into stuff for one Under Secretary or another to take point on as action is required. Or whatever. So you’d have somebody with in-job experience acting like a Chief Operating Officer, and you’d have the President acting like unto a CEO – and in between them, you’d have, like, a Betsy DeVos or a Ben Carson serving at the pleasure of the President: playing mere middleman, or (a) getting removed from that role if they exceed it; at which point (b) the President can then of course just tell that hands-on COO type whatever he would’ve said through an intermediary. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [February 20, 2017, 6:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cabinet-question/779992/42 "2017-02-20T18:04:15Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > See, what I’d thought was, in a situation where the President (a) makes decisions and sets policy, and then (b) tells a Secretary to handle the details of making the policy happen, the Secretary – really just tells a Deputy Secretary to handle the details of making it happen, translating decisions and policies into stuff for one Under Secretary or another to take point on as action is required. Or whatever. > > So you’d have somebody with in-job experience acting like a Chief Operating Officer, and you’d have the President acting like unto a CEO – and in between them, you’d have, like, a Betsy DeVos or a Ben Carson serving at the pleasure of the President: playing mere middleman, or (a) getting removed from that role if they exceed it; at which point (b) the President can then of course just tell that hands-on COO type whatever he would’ve said through an intermediary. The thing is the government is a large and complex operation. If the President can just give an order to the Secretary of State to get something done, he can move on to the next issue. But if there isn’t a Secretary of State, the President will have to make phone calls and give directions to a number of next-level-down employees himself. And that only works if the President has taken the time to learn who those next-level-down employees are and what their roles are in the State Department. A simple decision that should have taken a few minutes becomes a job that takes several hours. And there are always overwhelming demands on the President’s time. The time he spent talking to people in the State Department was time he should have spend making a dozen other decisions in other areas of the government. It’s not just empty work for the cabinet officials either. They don’t simply pass on the President’s decision to the next level below them. They need to listen to what the President said, understand what he meant, and translate it into actual policies and procedures. Then they have to know their department and know whose job it is to carry out each part of those policies and procedures. And know who is doing their job well and who isn’t. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_other_waldo_pepper/32/12370_2.png) [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Other_Waldo_Pepper)\ **Post date:** [February 20, 2017, 6:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cabinet-question/779992/43 "2017-02-20T18:49:32Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > The thing is the government is a large and complex operation. If the President can just give an order to the Secretary of State to get something done, he can move on to the next issue. But if there isn’t a Secretary of State, the President will have to make phone calls and give directions to a number of next-level-down employees himself. And that only works if the President has taken the time to learn who those next-level-down employees are and what their roles are in the State Department. My thinking was, it’s not really _“a number of next-level-down employees”_, except in the sense that, uh, _“one”_ is a number; that, in the absence of a Secretary, some individual is – effectively – the acting secretary, who knows the department; and who knows who does what job, and knows who does what job well; and who knows policies and procedures and all that other stuff you were just saying. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cabinet-question/779992.md?page=2)