Picking McHugh

I was thinking the other day about the Obama nomination of John McHugh, a Republican, as Secretary of the Army.

When I first heard about it, I thought that it was simply a matter of picking the best person -- by which I don't mean so much the absolute best person as I mean 'an acceptable and available person'. I am willing to believe that the definition of 'best' and 'acceptable' are very fluid, and I don't think that there is ever an absolutely best person, so good that any other choice is not even second best but more like tenth or twelfth. (Well, perhaps in the last Presidential election...) In fact, I tend to think that we pick the people who are acceptable much more often than we pick the people who are the best, because a) the best like where they are just fine, thank you, and see no reason to move, and b) the people who are the best at one thing are rarely as good, or even in the same range, at other things -- and if you're being picked for a job that requires multiple diverse skills, you might be, overall, not acceptable. I'm thinking, for example, of the woman who was picked years ago to run the Red Cross (no, not Elizabeth Dole, for whom I have little use -- it was a woman cardiologist; I just can't recall her name) -- she was bright and fierce and dedicated, but as a politician, she was not very good - and in running the organization, you needed to be one.

So when you're picking a visible position like SecArmy, it's got to be someone who knows the field, but also knows the players. From what I gather (and I haven't done a lot of reading on this), McHugh fits the bill. He's conversant with the military, and he's a long-time political player. Good choice.

But now I read that a secondary reason for picking him was that as a long term Republican player, his selection (and, more specifically, his willingness to be selected) sends the message to other, less visible Republicans that the experienced members of their party might be looking to jump ship -- not leave the party, but set aside their identity as part of the Republican establishment -- because they don't believe that there will be a resurgence of the 'Republican brand' for a while -- and so, perhaps they ought to be considering whether its in their self interest to be more amenable to the Democrats and the Democratic agenda. You can toil in the Republican outlands, or you can sign on with the Democrats and get some love right now. It's not a burning likelihood that the next Republican convention will be held in a phone booth, but if the moderates are supporting the Democrats, and the radicals are splitting off into their own little orbits -- this accelerates the failure of the Republicans. And so, picking McHugh is a sly political move, not just 'picking the best person'.

(All of this is hyperbole, I know -- whenever politicians are on the outs, its 'the end of the world', 'things will never be the same', all of that. I expect that the Republicans will be back in power -- possibly in four years (hope not!), probably in eight (at least stronger in Congress), and almost certainly in twelve. None of that is very comforting to the Republicans who miss the big offices right now, though.)

The thing is, though I know that Obama is a canny politician - who can forget that great Photoshop of him on the podium at the outdoor convention, with the words "Everybody chill the fuck out -- I got this!" - and he did, too), and Rahm Emmanuel is probably as good as they come in political maneuvering - I find that if McHugh's choice was informed by political considerations to that extent (I won't ask for it 'not at all'), it bothers me. I don't like thinking of Obama as someone who does things for primarily or even secondarily political reasons. I don't think of him as Mr. Smith in Washington -- but in a way, I guess I do. And thinking that he might just be a little slicker than he's shown himself to be, publicly -- makes me sad. It makes me wonder if any politician is truly what he appears to be.

This in no way implies that I think Obama was a bad choice, or a good-enough choice. I am thrilled by what he's doing, thrilled by his drive to make a difference in a broad range of areas, to 'right what once went wrong', to quote Quantum Leap. I think his energy and intelligence, his scope of vision and depth of conviction are awesome. I think he was the right man for the job, and it would take a heck of a lot more than political considerations for me to change that view, or even alter it.

I just wish that the possibility of altering it didn't occur to me.