None, zip, zero. There is absolutely no reason to give any of the party that tried to end democracy a single seat at the table.
Romney is the absolutely radical fringe of the (very small) “maybe don’t overthrow democracy and install a fascist dictator” wing of the GOP, and he was quite happy debase himself and kiss the ring when Trump called. And even now won’t to commit to voting for the Democrats, which to be honest is almost as dodgy as the MAGAts who are eager to vote for Trump. He admits Trump is a threat to democracy and wants to be dictator, yet he won’t bring himself to wholeheartedly endorse Biden or Harris.
Some other positions are simply due for a replacement, for example I think Post Office Governors’ terms are staggered so one is appointed every December. And Federal Reserve Governors’ terms are staggered so one is appointed every other January (next being 2026).
At a change of Administrations – even when the same party retains the White House – it is traditionally for all political appointees to submit their resignations, giving the incoming President the opportunity to accept or reject them as he sees fit.
In the most recent case of a VP directly succeeding the President he served (GHW Bush), the Reagan cabinet offered their resignations and Bush chose to retain three cabinet secretaries (Treasury Secretary Nicholas F. Brady, Attorney General Richard Thornburgh and Education Secretary Lauro Cavazos). But all three had been appointed just a few months before the transition in consultation with Bush.
I agree with both of you. The Dems have already been pulled far enough to the center-right without a good-will gesture to show we’re willing to hear center-right voices. And the only Republicans I want to see appointed to positions of power are the ones who have the gonads to fully renounce the party and officially become Democrats.
Bob Inglis. Bill Weld. Arnold Schwarzenegger (admittedly more a centrist but has some conservative views). I’m not really a fan of Jeff Flake but he has been a consistent critic of both Trump and the direction that the GOP was moving in. I’m sure there are a lot more at state levels that I’m not particularly familiar with.
But frankly, unless there are Republicans (or former Republicans) that bring special expertise to the table, I don’t see the value in a hypothetical President Harris extending Cabinet appointments or ambassadorships ‘across the aisle’; it isn’t going to make a lick of difference to the vast majority of swing voters, and a president really needs a team of people who are in line with their policy intentions. I think there is value in having a diversity of political views in the legislature, and (to the extent it is useful) in a president’s cadre of advisors but the people crafting and executing detail policy should be working in concert with the chief executive.
Good point. I guess I’m so used to a President building their own cabinet and making the the administration their own, I hadn’t thought about it that way.
I still think Harris should choose her own cabinet and make her own appointments, but not everyone has to go. But typically people expect a shakeup after an election, even when reelecting the same Pres. Some folks are ready for a job shuffle to stage them better later.
Which is why I think it sensible to pick non-MAGA conservative voices for at least a few positions. But I certainly don’t want Project 2025 to sneak in the back door.
That’s a strong criticism to argue against my thought. Worthy of thought.
How far down do political appointees go in the US? Up here in Canada, only the person on top who is in the Prime Minister’s cabinet is political. For example the Minister of Justice has a Deputy Minister and a team of Associate Deputy Ministers who actually run the department. Everyone below the minister is a career staffer and survives a change of administration.
As I mentioned, in the last case of a VP taking over for the President he served under, Bush Sr. replaced 13 out of 16 Cabinet-level officers. I don’t think replacing Cabinet officers is going to “alienate the base.” They don’t care who’s the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, what they care about are the policies that a President Harris will pursue.
And it’s important for a new President to get people in place who are fully aligned with his or her agenda, as well as to reward and promote the people who helped get her to the White House. It might be useful to keep on a couple for the sake of continuity, but a new President brining in her own personnel is an expected part of the transition.
The plurality of those positions are “Schedule C” appointments. Typically positions that provide support to more senior politically-appointed positions, e.g. confidential assistants, policy experts, counsels, and schedulers. They do not require Senate approval and are usually made in consultation between the White House and the policymaker that the position serves (with the WH having the final say). Very typically these positions go to more junior campaign workers as a reward for their efforts.
Just as an example, take a look at the cabinet for the Obama Administration. Only two people served on the Cabinet for the entire eight-year administration: Joe Biden, and Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack. In many cases, original members of his cabinet left at the end of his first term.
FWIW, here is a list of political appointees from the other party. Notable (and dubious) Democrats in Trump’s administration were Ivanka Trump, Peter Navarro, and Michael (ack…I threw up a little typing this) Flynn.
I’d say that in a Harris Administration Blinken, Austin and Garland are almost certainly gone, and not particularly missed. She may ask Mayorkas to stay just to stick it to House Republicans.
Good points, or they could be, if anyone in the GOP was actually conservative. A radical right-winger who detests the America-hating fuckstick is still a radical right-winger.
And you can be radical or you can be conservative. You can’t be both.