whyroots

 
 

After the Senate confirmation hearings, I would say that Eric Holder goes right at the top of my list of Obama appointments.  This has nothing to do with his résumé or experience, but simply the clarity and honesty with which he faced his questioners during the confirmation.  Compare this performance to Alberto Gonzales and Michael Mukasey.  This type of directness and reasonableness is exactly what I expect from Barack Obama and his Cabinet; indeed, it is the principal reason I voted for him.

In response to what was really a rather pathetic line of questioning from Senator Orrin Hatch -- Some people have accused Cheney et al. of committing war crimes, but you wouldn't prosecute them, would you? -- Holder stated simply, "No one is above the law... We will follow the evidence... and let that take us where it should."  Remarkably absent from Holder's entire hearing was the double-
speak and selective amnesia we have come to expect from the  Justice Department.

Coming in at the bottom of my list, somewhat artificially in order to respond to this writing prompt, is the Nobel Laureate and now-Energy Secretary Steven Chu.
I must admit I am proud to see appointed someone who is a professor PhD recipient from the department that awarded me my first degree.  Unfortunately, though, his background and research are totally irrelevant to energy issues.  I am sure that Dr. Chu is smart enough to master the field of energy research, as well as the political issues related to energy policy, but it seems odd that Obama has chosen someone with literally no background in energy or government.  His physics background will bias him towards physical solutions (e.g. nuclear) and away from chemical (e.g. ethanol) or biological (e.g. engineered cells) solutions.  There were probably other, more qualified applicants, eager to solve the most important issue of our generation.

-- Jacob Levine

 


Comments

Nathan Huttner

Wed, 21 Jan 2009 07:38:24

I chose Steven Chu as my favorite appointment, so I clearly have some problems with your choice for least favorite. Most of all, I don't really understand where you're coming from with the, "He's a physicist so he doesn't like biology" thing. I don't think there's any evidence that he will be biased, and I don't think that any professional scientist concerned about solving global warning would use anything other than the best empirical research to guide decision-making. As director of the Lawrence Berkeley National Lab, he has administrative experience in running one of the DOE's largest labs, and the lab has programs in 18 disciplines, not only physics. Anyway, I just don't see any problem with him.

 

Kate Klonick

Thu, 22 Jan 2009 19:59:00

I second Jacob's choices.

 

Nathan Huttner

Thu, 22 Jan 2009 23:44:21

I'd really encourage you to read more about Chu. His experience at Lawrence Berkeley National Lab is incredibly salient and a far more worthwhile preparation for dealing with DOE's responsibilities and bureaucracy than an environmental science/ecology degree. Here's a guest contributor to Grist giving his top five reasons (http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/12/15/141755/94), and here's a Wonkroom post about his commitment to solving the climate crisis (http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/2008/12/06/steven-chu-beautiful-planet/).

Like running any sizable government agency, I think having successful bureaucratic experience, a knowledge of the subject, and the ability to serve as a powerful policy advocate are the three key characteristics, and Chu passes on all three counts with flying colors.

 



Leave a Reply