By Dylan Matthews
At a certain level, I really want to agree with Bruce Ackerman's argument here. His main proposal - requiring Senate confirmation for senior White House staffers like the Office of Health Reform chairperson or counsel to the president - seems like a nice, principled reform that makes a lot of sense in theory. After all, Larry Summers has at least as much influence on Obama's economic policy as Tim Geithner - why should only one have to face Senate scrutiny?
But Ackerman gives the Senate far too much credit. Take the Geithner/Summers example. Now, you can criticize Geithner for a lot of things, but it would ludicrous to attribute his failures to his tax delinquency while at the IMF, or to even suggest the two are related. Similarly, while I'd be the first to argue that Summers is too cautious at times, long hearings about his views on women and science or his hijinks with Andrei Shleifer wouldn't have made him any more effective at the NEC. Ackerman also cites the sinking of Tom Daschle's nomination. But that was less a case of noble Senate crusaders sinking a corrupt nominee than of a stupid scandal depriving the federal government of a skilled public servant. Ackerman - while praising him - singles out White House counsel Greg Craig as someone who should have required Senate approval. I absolutely guarantee that hypothetical Craig confirmation hearings would include more mentions of Elián González, John Hinckley, and the Clinton impeachment than of, say, detainee policy. And these are relatively mild cases. Remember when the appointments of Roberta Achtenberg and James Hormel were held for months and years, respectively, because America could not afford for its assistant HUD secretaries or ambassadors to Luxembourg to be openly gay?
Such is "advice and consent" these days. Rather than providing an incentive for integrity and experience in would-be nominees, the Senate confirmation system encourages them to be milquetoast actors without paper trails. Perhaps if the committee chairman and ranking members who run confirmation hearings - or the members of the press who cover them - were less petty in their foci, Ackerman's plan would be tenable, but as it stands it would only worsen the problem.
