The Cabinet

                The Cabinet seeks to co-ordinate the work of the executive branch of government. The main role of Cabinet is therefore to implement decisions reached amongst its members. The Cabinet is appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate. The President may choose his Cabinet members from a wide number of sources. For instance, he may recruit from Congress itself. Due to the separation of powers, a member of Congress must resign their position in order to join the Cabinet. As such, the President often has more chance of tempting a former member of Congress to his Cabinet than an existing member. State legislatures may also be considered here. Furthermore, the President may recruit members from serving or former state governors. This may well provide additional experience of governing to his Cabinet. From a similar angle, he may also recruit serving or former city mayors. The Cabinet may also consist of policy experts, figures from academia and prominent people aligned to the governing party or ideological cause.

                Unlike other comparable democracies, the President does not campaign on a shared platform with Cabinet members. He has no equivalent of a 'shadow' Cabinet, and the habit of co-operation it generates; that a British Prime Minister benefits from. Moreover, he has few sanctions available to ensure a coherent, disciplined approach. Given the weak nature of party labels within the states, the President may well face problems ensuring that the Cabinet maintains a shared platform. It must of course be recognized here that the Cabinet is a government of all the talents, rather than necessarily supporters from his own party. Indeed, it is customary for a newly-elected President to appoint or at least retain someone from the opposing party. When Obama took over in January 2009, he kept Robert Gates as Defense Secretary.

There are very few rules that limit what the President can and cannot do with Cabinet. For instance, the President can create new Cabinet departments (as in the case of the Department for Homeland Security in 2002 as a response to 9/11). It should also be noted that when appointing members to his Cabinet, the President usually seeks to reflect the diversity of the country. The aim is to create a Cabinet that looks like America in terms of social background. Barack Obama currently presides over the most racially diverse Cabinet in American history.

All Presidents have a tendency to work closely with a small circle of powerful figures. As such, some Cabinet members are of far greater importance than others. In terms of foreign policy, the Secretary of State and the Defense Secretary will always be major players regardless of which party occupies the White House. Similarly, the Treasury Secretary will always play a key role within any administration. However, it must be noted that the President will also receive advice from members of the EOP (such as the National Security Advisor over foreign policy and the Chief of Staff over a wide number of issues).

                The importance of the Cabinet as a collective body is marginal when compared to the EOP. For one, members of the Cabinet hold divided loyalties whereas members of the EOP do not. A Cabinet minister is always vulnerable to ‘going native,’ unlike those who form part of the EOP. Secondly, members of the EOP have a level of proximity to the President that members of the Cabinet might envy. As Daniel Moynihan (a member of four successive administrations) once said; “never underestimate the power of proximity.” Thirdly, members of the Cabinet are essentially specialists within their area. As such, Cabinet meetings do not necessarily generate much in the way of collective discussion or progress. Finally, the number of Cabinet meetings tends to decline as the President enters his second term. The media only really tends to focus upon Cabinet meetings at the start of the presidency, or at times of genuine national crisis. Although the Cabinet as an institution goes back to the founding of the Republic, its salience has diminished in comparison to the EOP. To give one particular instance, President Obama chose the EOP to drive through his bold health care reform as opposed to the Cabinet.

                It is revealing to note that members of the Cabinet itself do not necessarily view the body as particularly important. For some people, the offer of a Cabinet position may mean a loss of power. Indeed, a Senator may actually wield more power than a lower-ranking member of the Cabinet. In order to give up a congressional seat, the President will have to offer a tempting position to those who already have power. Hillary Clinton is a good example of this point. She was Senator for New York before accepting Obama’s invitation to take up the post of Secretary of State. Her successor (John Kerry) was also a former Senator.

Given the separation of powers inherent within the American system, Cabinet ministers hold little direct influence over members of Congress. During a period of divided government, relations between the executive and the legislature can easily turn sour. Furthermore, the fate of Cabinet ministers is not tied into the fate of the President. There is nothing comparable to say collective ministerial responsibility one might find in a parliamentary system of governance. The Cabinet is fundamentally a “team of rivals” to use a term popularized by Abraham Lincoln. As such, the President will have to be attentive to potential turf wars within the Cabinet, a point alluded to by the former Secretary of State for Defense Robert Gates when he left the Obama administration. There is for instance an obvious tension between the diplomats at the State Department and the hawks at the Defense Department. An effective foreign policy strategy requires a compromise between these two essentially contrary worldviews.