by Sanford Levinson

John McCain, the subject of a significant interview in The New York Times, has made perhaps his greatest contribution to this presidential campaign season by beginning, even at this early stage in the campaign, to discuss who might actually serve in his administration. Thus he indicates that he might well retain Robert Gates as secretary of Defense and name General Petraous as head of the Joint Chiefs. Whatever one's politics, one should applaud McCain's openness with the public in this regard. There are many things that are objectionable about our current presidentialist system, but one of its most important defects is the way we in effect treat a presidential candidate as a quasi-monarch. There is no serious discussion during a campaign about who, specifically, will be asked to fill such important Cabinet positions as secretary of State, secretary of Defense, secretary of the Treasury, and attorney general. (This is obviously not meant to be an exhaustive list of important positions about which we need information in order to cast an informed vote.) The lucky winner gets de facto carte blanche, save for truly unusual exceptions like Ronald Reagan's choice of John Tower to be secretary of Defense, to pick whomever he wishes. John Kennedy notably picked for his secretary of State someone he had never met, perhaps because, like many presidents, he thought he could make his own foreign policy through charm and "back-channel" contacts. Dean Rusk may have had many sterling qualities, but his judgment as secretary of State was not one of them. Senate confirmation hearings are perfunctory, especially if the Senate is controlled by the president's own party. The tradition is that, like a monarch, the president is entitled to pick his (or, perhaps in 2009, her) palace staff, without serious oversight with regard to the process of selection. Does a president want his brother (Robert Kennedy) or campaign manager (John Mitchell) to serve as attorney general? Sure, why not? Is it conceivable, I wonder, that either JFK or Nixon would have dared suggest such questionable (if not outright illegitimate) appointments during the campaign itself? (That RFK staffed the DOJ with many truly great appointees was lucky for the country, but it does not legitimize his own appointment.) It would be good not only for the country to have some genuine idea what an actual administration might look like. It would also be good for the candidate, who would not have to spend the "transition" making dozens of choices. Instead, the president- to-be might actually use the time more valuably to become ever more knowledgeable about the problems that he/she will shortly be dealing with. Or, in the alternative, if candidates actually had to construct cabinets during the run-up to the election, then perhaps we could also eliminate another pernicious feature of our present system, which is the 10-week hiatus between election and inauguration, during which a discredited and defeated incumbent may have all sorts of opportunities to make mischief for his successor. (The Brits install their new PMs the day after the election, I believe, something made possible by the fact that there is always a "shadow government" in waiting.) I remain on the fence as among the Democratic candidates. One thing that could get me off the fence is knowledge about what a Clinton, Obama, or Edwards administration might really look like. To be sure, these worthy contenders may wish to wait until they are actually nominated, for they might want to reach out to supporters of their vanquished opponents. Fair enough, but I'd still like to see some lists (consisting of fewer than a dozen names/position) of people they consider serious candidates for places in their administrations. Needless to say, it would be interesting to see how many overlapping names there are. Will Richard Holbrooke, for example, make it to the finals as a potential secretary of State for all three candidates? Enquiring minds need a lot of information if they are to cast sensible votes. Senator McCain deserves our thanks for initiating an important national conversation that should be emulated by all of the other candidates who are asking us for their support.