In a first rate piece of analysis laying out the problems with Rep. Tim Ryan's reliance on a simpleminded and single minded appeal to the supposed power of white identify politics in his effort to replace Nancy Pelosi as Minority House Leader, WaPo's Paul Waldman concludes by observing that Democrats "can mount an effective opposition and gain back what they’ve lost — but only if they’re smart about it." And to move on from Waldman's argument, part of being smart about it implies that Democrats find a way to effectively direct the narrative of the Trump presidency. Democrats not only need to draw attention to the bunkum that the Trump Mafia will serve up, but they need a way to insure that people hear what they're saying.
Which leads me to ask - and I hope I'm not being silly - but could Democrats in Congress institute a shadow cabinet to help focus attention in an organized fashion on Trump's exceptionally disturbing appointees and their policies? A shadow cabinet is a fixture in many parliamentary democracies, most notably Great Britain, although they exist in numerous other countries. According to the Simple English Wikipedia:
A shadow cabinet is a group of politicians who hold a political post with their party, but whose party are not in government (that is, an opposition party). A member of the shadow cabinet is a shadow minister. The leader of a shadow cabinet is called the Leader of the Opposition.
Each minister of a Cabinet has a corresponding shadow minister. The shadow minister provides an alternative to the minister in the government. The two of them will debate with each other on issues relating to their own area of jurisdiction. ...
But, you say, the United States does not have a parliamentary system of government where the Head of the Government (usually designated Prime Minister) is selected by the legislative branch rather than by direct election as in the U.S. (there may also be an elected Head of State (usually designated President) who occupies a more symbolic position). In a parliamentary government, the shadow cabinet not only monitors the opposition, but is on the ready to take over if the government falls. When the legislature and the executive are separate, as they are in the U.S., the oppositional role of a shadow cabinet would be minimized; nor could we imagine members of a Trumpian cabinet condescending to debate with specified legislative opposition partners about the areas that come under their purview. But that would be okay - the function of our presidential shadow cabinet would be different, but still important. It could still provide a focus for the alternative policies endorsed by an otherwise sidelined opposition that has been reduced to trying to hold very vulnerable lines.
The idea of a shadow cabinet raises many questions including, but not restricted to issues of implementation. Could shadow ministers, focused like lasers on the activities of their opposite number, effectively serve as a fulcrum for building a consistent story about what Trump's gang likely to try to put over on Americans? Is there any reason to suppose that an official unofficial shadow cabinet minister could insure more comprehensive and respectful media attention than opposition congressmen and women now get? Indeed, would the formation of such a body itself help shape the narrative in a useful way? Can one expect an organized response from a Democratic party that is still quarreling over the reasons for its defeat?
The positives that I see are that such an approach might have real potential to point out differences in the two parties approaches in a systematic but visceral fashion. It would, also, force the Democratic Party opposition to unite around a real platform that would serve as more than gilding for an electoral candidate. Shadow cabinet members could be drawn from both House and Senate, based on willingness to take on the role and a hard-headed assessment of who would give the party more bang for the buck.
Finally, just think of the contrast between the members of a progressive shadow cabinet and the Trump gang. So far Trump's cabinet appointments have confirmed every fear that has haunted our dreams since the unspeakable happened and the billionaire carnival barker won the big teddy bear for his very ownsies. With the assistance of a contingent of corporate lobbyists and members of the Koch brothers' political machine, he has assembled a group of outrageously wealthy fringe conservatives, whackos, racists, homophobes, and on-the-make business executives, most of whom lack relevant qualifications, and are frequently notable only for expressing hostility to the goals of the agencies they will oversee.
With that picture of ideological bias, ignorance and cupidity as a backdrop, imagine how good a progressive shadow cabinet might look. Consider, for example, the following possible pairs of oppositional cabinet members:
Jeff Sessions, the Attorney General appointee is a closet racist who has been outed several times although his GOP allies are all trying to help him keep that closet closed. What about Rep. John Lewis as his opposite number? Or Rep. James Clyburn. The Treasury appointee, Goldman Sachs financier Steve Mnuchin, traffics in the type of derivatives that were at the heart of the financial crisis of 2008; a bank he founded has been named in a redlining complaint while its efforts to foreclose on a New York family were characterized as " "harsh, repugnant, shocking and repulsive''. He is, as Steve Benen has documented, going to be very hard to defend during hearings. So who would be a better shadow opposite than Senator Elizabeth Warren? Contrast and compare - and imagine Warren acting as the Democratic party's official monitor of Mnuchin. Congressman Richard Price, Obamacare opponent extraordinaire will likely end up as Trump's Secretary of Health and Human Services although one hopes Democrats will fight the nomination like hell. Price is not only on the record for privatizing Medicare, but is a member of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS) which has been characterized as an organization that "stands at direct odds, in myriad ways, with some of very foundational beliefs of evidence-based modern public-health research," or, more humorously, as "Glenn Beck with an MD." Why not pair him with his arch-opposite, Bernie Sanders? (Or maybe Bernie would be best as Leader of the Opposition) Education Secretary, Betsy DeVos, wants to destroy public education so pair her with a progressive who understands and has spoken out about the rights of all Americans to a first-rate education - someone like Rep. Keith Elllison, perhaps?You see how it goes? Good fun, yeah? And it's not difficult. Just think about the contrast between, say, Trump's possible selection for the Department of Veteran's Affairs, Sarah Palin and just about any progressive Democrat who can speak English. And a similar rule could be applied to selecting shadow partners for any of the brigade of racists, opportunists and nutjobs that Trump seems to be considering for his remaining appointees: just pair them with an articulate, honest legislator who has a talent for translating GOP spin into an indictment of the spinner.
Maybe this proposal is fatuous and naive. Maybe it ignores the realities of our political system, or maybe it's just too much to expect a diverse group of Democrats to actually work as a disciplined team to form, inform and support a shadow cabinet. Maybe it wouldn't have any beneficial effect if they did.
But maybe, just maybe, something like this - there would be many ways to set it up - could help to effectively focus the necessary push back against a nightmare kleptocracy that threatens undo to all that progressives have achieved since 1920. Maybe what we need is to present a consistent message over and over again in a fashion that might finally reach just a few of those members of that white working class that elected Trump because he "will shake things up" and convince them that an 9.0 earthquake is not a good model for stable and successful government, especially when shaking things up amounts to a shakedown.