04:51 pm
Loyalty v. Ideology (Reboot)
Editor’s note: Somehow the original version of this post disappeared — apparently I overwrote the Big Three post on top of it. Apologies to those subscribers who saw it already — you can stop reading now.
Apparently yet another media outlet is trying to play up the Obama-Clinton rivalry:
Preparing for her new role as secretary of state, Hillary Rodham Clinton is moving to surround herself with a cast of die-hard loyalists and veterans of her husband’s administration to help her cope with world crises and backstage Washington power plays.
For her team of foreign policy experts, the nation’s third female secretary of state is expected to draw heavily from the staff of the first, Madeleine Albright, who was an early supporter of Clinton’s unsuccessful bid for the Democratic presidential nomination.
And to deal with internal Obama administration affairs, State Department bureaucratic politics and media pressures, the former first lady appears set to tap current Senate aides and former White House “Hillaryland” stalwarts, whose reputation for insularity and staunch protectiveness has already set off anxiety among career foreign service officers. . . .
The prospect of their imminent arrival in Foggy Bottom has been a hot topic of nervous corridor conversation among many in the professional diplomatic corps who fear they will be frozen out of positions of influence.
Okay folks, this is ridiculous. Here’s a list of the people identified in the story as “Hillaryland stalwarts.” I’m excluding those identified as candidates for her personal staff (which means people working in the office of the Secretary), since any Secretary of State brings such folks with him/her:
- James Steinberg (supported Obama during the primaries)
- Andrew Shapiro
- Lee Feinstein
- Doug Hattaway
- James Rubin
- Suzy George
- Wendy Sherman
- Michael Sheehan
- Rand Beers (former foreign service officer)
- Robert Einhorn
- Robert Gelbard (former foreign service officer)
- Daniel Kurtzer
- Dennis Ross
- Toni Verstandig
- Michael Guest (former foreign service officer)
I know a few of these folks personally, and know all by Verstandig by reputation. All, with the exception of Ross (who served both Bush I and Clinton) and perhaps Gelbard are at the very least left-of-center. Most are dyed in the wool progressives.
Let me be clear here. When word first surfaced that Hillary was being considered as Secretary of State, I reported on what I was hearing within the Obama camp: unhappiness and fear that those who supported Obama during the primaries would be frozen out of the State Department. Some remain concerned, but most do not — they see the choice of Steinberg, for example, as evidence that Hillary will put together a team that is not only from her “camp.”
More importantly, every single one of the folks on the above list supported Obama in the general. It’s not like we’re talking about rampant disloyalty to the President-elect.
There are two other problems with the story. First, Matthew Lee, the reporter, has selectively picked from the transition team lists those known to have supported Clinton from the primary. Someone else could just as easily have picked those known to have supported Obama. I’m guessing it’s even possible to pick those who supported Edwards, Richardson, Biden, and Dodd. Breathlessly reporting that some Hillary supporters just might get jobs working for her is not exactly presenting a full picture.
Second, word that some foreign service officers are anxious that they will not have senior positions in a Clinton State Department also is nonsense. Several senior posts, including the Undersecretary for Political Affairs and the Undersecretary for Management, usually go to career FSOs. Yes, as Life after Jerusalem notes, only one Secretary of State came fromt he ranks of the foreign service (Eagleberger), and very few have risen to the rank of Deputy Secretary:
[P}olitical appointees hurt morale. Most of us serve knowing that no matter how good we are, we can't expect to attain the highest positions in the Department unless we win the lottery. Only one Secretary of State has been a career Foreign Service Officer (points if you know who), and many of the Under Secretaries, Assistant Secretaries, and the Ambassadors at the nicest posts are political appointees. Which sends a strong message that the rank and file don't measure up.
And the truth is we do measure up. We serve, year after year, advancing the President's foreign policy to the best of our abilities agenda regardless of who occupies the White House. Because we are professionals. And just like professional soldiers, we should be able to expect that the majority of our leaders have gotten where they are by succeeding on the same path we are walking, not by the size of their checkbook or the happenstance of their birth.
LAJ is right in saying that we would never have a general who is a political appointee, and that we should have a more professional diplomatic corps. But I have to disagree with her argument that most senior people got their position as a result of their wallet or birth. Although that may be true about political Ambassadors, it’s not an accurate portray of senior people at State, many of whom have been among the most talented and capable people I’ve ever met (including some of the list above).
To put it another way, we shouldn’t confuse loyalty with ideology. Support for Clinton in the primaries does not translate into opposition to Obama, un-progressive views, or the inability to do their jobs. Both the press and the foreign service (and, frankly those of us who supported Obama in the primaries) need to stop whining and give the Secretary-designate the benefit of the doubt.
UPDATE: Before the original post disappeared, Life after Jerusalem did post a comment (which now appears at the bottom of the Big Three post), and I want to reproduce it here:
I didn’t mean to imply that all politically appointed senior people within the Department are not talented and capable. The Assistant Secretary in my bureau, for example, is very talented and capable and is also a political appointee. Lots of the senior political appointees are. But particularly among political appointee ambassadors, there are a lot who lack qualifications beyond knowing (or having contributed to) the President.
The folks in the list above don’t fall into that category. They are a talented and experienced bunch who I have confidence will serve the Secretary and the Department well. And I recognize the need for some political appointees. It is natural for a new Secretary to want to have advisors she already trusts and can depend on. But I guess I think the practice could be scaled back. In much the same way as real diversity can be achieved not by lowering standards but by casting a wider net, more of the senior postions could be filled by the rank and file of the Department if only our leaders would notice the talent base that is here.
Oh, but I will say that if there are anxious conversations in the cooridors about Clinton’s selections and of people being “frozen out” of influential positions, I haven’t heard them.
Related posts
| posted in foreign policy, politics | 0 Comments

One of the most urgent foreign policy priorities for the next administration is to take on the MIPC.
