Some days I do not understand the DC press corps
There are days when you can tell that the DC press corps knows more than it can actually say, because of off-the-record conversations and the like. And then there are days when the press overinterprets something to death. I think today is one of the latter. For Exhibit A, let’s go with this lead from ...
There are days when you can tell that the DC press corps knows more than it can actually say, because of off-the-record conversations and the like. And then there are days when the press overinterprets something to death. I think today is one of the latter. For Exhibit A, let's go with this lead from Politico's Ben Smith & John F. Harris: President-elect Barack Obama’s selection of Rep. Rahm Emanuel (D-Ill.) as his White House chief of staff is the latest demonstration of a quality Obama showed repeatedly over the course of his campaign: He’s willing to do what it takes to win. If his goal had been to create a cordial bipartisan tone in Washington — much less a calm, profanity-free West Wing — Obama would have looked elsewhere. Smith & Harris' lead is pretty much how people are reading this pick -- which strikes me as idiotic. Looking back, is there any correlation between the combativeness of the chief of staff and the exent of bipartisan comity? George H.W. Bush's first chief of staff, John Sununu, rubbed a lot of people the wrong way -- but one can hardly call Bush 41 a hyperpartisan president. George W. Bush's first chief of staff, Andy Card, had a reputation as a mild-mannered, moderate kind of guy -- but the first term of Bush 43 wasn't exactly brimming with bipartisanship. The fact is that the extent of bipartisan cooperation in DC has little to do with the temperment of the chief of staff and everything to do with the preferences and leadership styles of the President and the majority and minority leaders of Congress. Maybe things will be nasty between Obama and the GOP -- but I seriously doubt if Emanuel will have much to do with it one way or the other.
There are days when you can tell that the DC press corps knows more than it can actually say, because of off-the-record conversations and the like. And then there are days when the press overinterprets something to death. I think today is one of the latter. For Exhibit A, let’s go with this lead from Politico’s Ben Smith & John F. Harris:
President-elect Barack Obama’s selection of Rep. Rahm Emanuel (D-Ill.) as his White House chief of staff is the latest demonstration of a quality Obama showed repeatedly over the course of his campaign: He’s willing to do what it takes to win. If his goal had been to create a cordial bipartisan tone in Washington — much less a calm, profanity-free West Wing — Obama would have looked elsewhere.
Smith & Harris’ lead is pretty much how people are reading this pick — which strikes me as idiotic. Looking back, is there any correlation between the combativeness of the chief of staff and the exent of bipartisan comity? George H.W. Bush’s first chief of staff, John Sununu, rubbed a lot of people the wrong way — but one can hardly call Bush 41 a hyperpartisan president. George W. Bush’s first chief of staff, Andy Card, had a reputation as a mild-mannered, moderate kind of guy — but the first term of Bush 43 wasn’t exactly brimming with bipartisanship. The fact is that the extent of bipartisan cooperation in DC has little to do with the temperment of the chief of staff and everything to do with the preferences and leadership styles of the President and the majority and minority leaders of Congress. Maybe things will be nasty between Obama and the GOP — but I seriously doubt if Emanuel will have much to do with it one way or the other.
Daniel W. Drezner is a professor of international politics at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University and co-host of the Space the Nation podcast. Twitter: @dandrezner
More from Foreign Policy
Can Russia Get Used to Being China’s Little Brother?
The power dynamic between Beijing and Moscow has switched dramatically.
Xi and Putin Have the Most Consequential Undeclared Alliance in the World
It’s become more important than Washington’s official alliances today.
It’s a New Great Game. Again.
Across Central Asia, Russia’s brand is tainted by Ukraine, China’s got challenges, and Washington senses another opening.
Iraqi Kurdistan’s House of Cards Is Collapsing
The region once seemed a bright spot in the disorder unleashed by U.S. regime change. Today, things look bleak.
Sign up for Morning Brief
Foreign Policy’s flagship daily newsletter with what’s coming up around the world today. Delivered weekdays.
By submitting your email, you agree to the Privacy Policy and Terms of Use and to receive email correspondence from us. You may opt out at any time.
