Not a One Way Street between President and his/her Advisors

[kennetha]

Some people seem to think that the President, all on his/her very own, with his/her own little brain, develops policy and that his/her advisors and cabinet officers simply carry out the policy that the President develops. But that's much too simple minded. The President typically doesn't have the time, skill, energy, or expertise to develop policy all on his/her own. There is always a lot of input from a lot of different sources that go into most major policy decisions. Presidential sign-off is probably the last step in a whole complicated process. Sometimes, of course, the President sets a broad goal from the top, from the outset --- as in, I want a plan that will get troops out of Iraq safely, expeditiously, but without reigniting a civil war. But that's a broad goal, not a detailed approach. It takes the input of lots of folks to come up with a detailed plan that the President will then sign off on.

What's the point you ask? The point is that folks like Hilary Clinton, Bob Gates, Jones, Rice, etc. aren't just there to "carry out Obama's policies" as if they will have no input into actually shaping those policies. They will play a major role in determining the exact details of the policies. And then they will also play a major role in putting those policies into practice.

It isn't simply a one way street between a President and his advisors. Though the President is the main driver of his/her administration, he/she never drives alone.

Is that good news or bad news? Depends. If people like Gates, Clinton, etc are already on more or less the same page as Obama, then it's good news. If they still think that can persuade Obama to their independent points of view, then it's not such good news -- because that would presage a lack of coherence, I think.

[political_Dem]

1. Exactly.

That's why it behooves the American citizenry to question and provide dissent about these choices. Mr. Obama isn't working in a vaccuum. There are some serious problems that surround some of the nominees who were chosen. And in some cases, it makes it seem as if his choices were more politically motivated than practical. This is the part that is distinctly bothering me.

Despite all this, I still believe Mr. Obama to be a brilliant tactician whose time has come in many ways. He will do our country proud. But he's got to stop with the "team of rivals" approach. Just because his nominees are presented as being "independent in their own minds" does not mean that they are honorable or trustworthy in their positions. They still carry the same feelings before the nomination as after it. There won't be conversions of personality overnight.

All in all, politics is a dangerous business.

He needs to pick suitable people who will have his best interests. Just because they are "allies" doesn't mean that they are less qualified or that they can't disagree with his ideas. He needs people he can trust--especially if he gets put in danger. Having people in those sensitive positions that one can trust will be more in its weight in gold than having adversaries who are aiming daggers at his back.

What is especially telling is the fact that he put one of his most caustic rivals in the position that is Fourth in line to the Presidency. I still maintain that this is a quid pro quo agreement. If he wanted Mrs. Clinton in his cabinet, why not put her in a position where she can do the most good (like in HHS or Education)? She will still have to agree to the same transparency. She will not be able to raise funds for any future campaigns. She will still have to make the same agreements about her husband. Nothing would change except that she would be put into a suitable position that would make her talents shine.

Is it wrong to expect people to be placed in a position in which they are the most strong in their qualifications and talents?

[Hell Hath No Fury]

2. I wrote this on another tread -

"Obama's choices will only be as good as the information he is presented with, and the designs of those who surround him."

You can have people who are at least on the same page as you are, and still not have them be "yes" people. I wish I was seeing more of that from Obama's choices.

[FrenchieCat]

3. The President is currently a He not a He/She.

Each President is different and works at policy making differently.

Each President pull together their policy based on many sources, including various advisors, book knowledge, own beliefs and agenda, and facts on the ground, etc....

It isn't a one way street.....it is a wide avenue with many intersections that, at some point, does turn into a one way street.

The President determines the policy in the end, or as Truman was quoted by Obama today; "the Buck stops with me".

and those serving at the pleasure of the President are charged with implementing his stated policy choices once he has arrived at a decision.

Whether this President is a micromanager or macromanager is at question, although he seemed to have ran his campaign being a bit of both, without being too much of one versus the other.

As far as I can see, it is all good news.....

As for "lack of coherence"; this is something that you came up with as a possible conclusion to the processes, and something I am certain the Obama administration will work to not have happen.....as was the case during his campaign.

[Ichingcarpenter]

4. Kennedy by passed normal avenues of communication during his presidency

He used lower level bureau chiefs and officers to get the real story in order
to make an informed decision even after listening to his Secretary of State or
Joint Chiefs.

[kennetha]

7. I wasn't referring to the current (illegitimate) resident of the office

but speaking generically of the office itself.

Someday (relatively soon, I hope) the occupant of the office will be a woman.

[ProSense]

5. "people seem to think...cabinet..simply carry out the policy that the President develops" That's

exactly how it works.

You appear to be confusing listening and consulting with developing. Obama has laid out his vision and developed policy positions, with input from trusted advisors, over the course of his entire campaign. He will continue to solicit input from his current advisors, but he is ultimately responsible for the policy developed.

As for this:

If they still think that can persuade Obama to their independent points of view

That would only be possible in a vacuum.

[kennetha]

6. You making a distinction without a difference.

What's the difference between "listening and consulting" and "developing?"

You aren't supposing that Obama already has his policies all fully worked out already, that they aren't any real decisions left to be made, are you?

That would be scary.

[redstate_democrat]

8. SOS, SecDef, etc, are only but a few people who Obama will be listening to

Sure, they will have their say, but a whole bunch of other folks with differing opinions will also. Obama will ultimately make the decision on what information to rely on more in developing HIS policy in a given situation. He has IN HOUSE policy directors who will take his cues, directions, and goals in developing the details, which he will AGAIN, edit and adjust if necessary to create something HE is satisfied with. That's called managing.