Cabinet members move on to greener pastures

-- Patty Gavnik, Editor

What reason did you give for leaving your last job? Chances are you didn’t tell your boss that you were frustrated by your lack of authority, or that you didn’t agree with the CEO’s vision of the organization. Certainly if you were asked to resign you didn’t flaunt this fact within your networking circles. Why would former members of President Bush’s Cabinet do it any differently?

Instead of fueling suspicion, the reasons Cabinet members gave for resigning should fuel our faith in their ability to remain professional and discreet while under fire from the press and the public. Refusing to burn bridges simply means they are capable of good judgment and sound temper. Defaming the president would only hurt their party, and ultimately, their own agendas.

Cabinet resignations are far from uncommon when incumbent presidents begin their second term. Before President Clinton left the White House, 10 of his original Cabinet members and several of their replacements had resigned their Cabinet posts. In eight years, Clinton burned through four commerce secretaries and three secretaries of treasury, defense, and energy. Only his attorney general and secretaries of the interior, education, and health and human services, survived until the end of his second term.

Cabinet resignations, voluntary or otherwise, don’t guarantee a lame duck second term. Resignations are forced all the time, and for good reason—by CEOs, by small business owners, by anyone who wants to shed the weight of a deadbeat employee. Anyone can be replaced professionally—the president himself comes with a replacement in tow. For Bush’s second term, it is simply a matter of finding replacements who possess an elusive mixture of credentials—talent and a willingness to take the job.

Despite the fact that a Cabinet position could really beef up your resume and send you on a top notch power trip, the highly qualified professionals who occupy these posts would fare much better financially in the private sector. And let’s face it, four years is a long time to stay in a job that is intense, tangled with red tape, under constant public scrutiny and far from home.

That said, the departure of Colin Powell is a cause of concern, but only because he gave the President credibility with the left. To play the good soldier and follow orders was a disservice to his position—dissent would have made the administration stronger. During the Cuban missile crisis, JFK brought in people from both the left and the right to argue so that he could determine the best course of action based on their points of contention. Powell’s lack of resolve derailed the opportunity for productive rhetoric during preliminary negotiations for the war in Iraq.

The press has made little of Powell’s inability to take a stand for his beliefs, while Condoleezza Rice has been pooh-poohed for what’s been painted a “yes-man” mentality. Historically, Rice has created personal success despite great obstacles. As Secretary of State she will have a visible opportunity to exhibit her succinct, intelligent style. The public will come to realize that she shares many opinions with the president, but she’s no pushover. Instead of criticizing the president for forcing resignations, the left should respect him as a boss who welcomes a challenge from his employees.

The Metropolitan Home || Calendar || Masthead || Contact
Metropolitan State University Homepage

All material © Metropolitan 2004, except as noted. All rights reserved.