|
 |
 |
|
The virtues of planning a transition early
As we head into the heart of the presidential campaign, a tired political narrative threatens to reawake. It has been tradition that candidates who plan for an electoral victory too early are accused of being presumptuous, arrogant, and disrespectful to voters and the electoral process. President George H.W. Bush accused then candidate Bill Clinton of “measuring the drapes” of the White House long before Election Day and others have been criticized for “counting chickens before they hatch.” As was the case in 1992, these rhetorical barbs are often ineffective and failed to get President Bush re-elected, but this type of accusation and the media attention that it generates pose more serious long-term risks.
The risks are two-fold. First, if thorough planning does not commence early, the new president may not be prepared to make the plethora of policy, organizational, and personnel decisions. President George W. Bush began his planning in late 1999, enabling a smooth transition, despite the truncated timeframe necessitated by the vote recount. President Obama officially began his transition in May of 2008 when he announced Chris Lu would begin planning. The thorough vetting of thousands of individuals for hundreds of positions in government simply cannot occur in just two months. Furthermore, in an increasingly fragile and security conscious time in our nation’s history, a seamless transition in national security is critical. Congress has helped facilitate this by permitting the early security screening by the FBI of selected individuals from each major campaign. Candidate Obama had nearly 100 advisors pre-screened, but Senator John McCain requested early security screening of just a handful of advisors, risking a gap in the transfer of sensitive information had he won. This is a risk not worth taking ever again.
Second, if transition planning does occur discretely, as it did at a North Virginia Bob’s Big Boy in the summer of 1980 for Ronald Reagan, the public will likely be shut out from that process. This could result in numerous early decisions being influenced by interest groups and lobbying with no accountability or public oversight. Unlike many aspects of campaigning, transition planning is only weakly regulated by the federal government, meaning that most transparency measures are self-enforced by candidates. Candidate Obama held quite open meetings to plan his transition with dozens stakeholders during the summer of 2008. This did not guarantee public input, but assured a level of discourse that secrecy largely precludes. By taking the pre-election transition from the shadows, a critical element of the campaign process can be made much more democratic and permit citizens greater access to early decision making.
The 2008 transition to power of President Obama was lauded by many as efficient, effective, and transparent. Credit for that transition should also have been shared with President Bush, who recognized that the demands of governance and national security meant that he had to be gracious with the opposition party and rise above partisan politics. President Obama would demonstrate presidential leadership and a deep concern for this country by clarifying that his opponent’s transition planning is necessary, responsible, and to be encouraged.
Brown is an assistant professor of political science at Seton Hall University and the author of the book, Lobbying the New President: Interests in Transition. He served as the policy and research director of the Council of Graduate Schools from 2004-2006.
Most Viewed RSS Feed »
