Should the GOP Build a Shadow Cabinet?

Bottom Line Up Front: It might not be enough to rely on "ranking members" to serve as a loyal opposition. The next leaders of the GOP should consider building a "shadow cabinet" system with a mix of public policy scholars and elected officials at all levels (even from different wings of the conservative movement) to serve as an anchor during our time in the minority.

I have to admit that I'm somewhat relieved with Barack Obama's selections for his economic team. They are not as bad as they could've been: Tim Geithner at Treasury, Larry Summers at the NEC, and Christina Romer chairing the CEA are all sensible people who know their economics. Larry Kudlow opines that this might be a "pro-growth economic team. While I'm not willing to go that far, I'm especially satisfied with the selection of Romer, who wrote a paper at the National Bureau of Economic Research with her husband David in November 2006 on the "Marcoeconomic Effects of Tax Changes" ...

"The resulting estimates indicate that tax increases are highly contractionary. The effects are strongly significant, highly robust, and much larger than those obtained using broader measures of tax changes. The large effect stems in considerable part from a powerful negative effect of tax increases on investment. We also find that tax changes intended to counteract projected changes in private economic activity have been largely unsuccessful, and that tax increases designed to reduce a persistent budget deficit appear to have much smaller output costs than other exogenous tax increases."

Phew!

Anyhow, after reading Patrick's recent post about our friends on the Left having very few to no new ideas as well as Stephen Gordon's post on regaining the trust of the small government wing of our party, it got me thinking: what's the best way for the GOP to start off on the right public policy footing beginning January 20th, 2009? (We need to come up with creative solutions based on first principles before coming up with a message. The McCain campaign had it backward.)

I'm not a fan of trying to copycat what the Conservative Party in the UK is doing, like David Brooks of the New York Times often tries to argue. The fact is that the British concepts of politics, philosophy of government, and the electorate are much different. But there is one interesting feature of the British parliamentary system that intrigues me: the opposing party's tradition of having certain members become a part of a "shadow cabinet" that not only provides coherent policy alternatives to the proposals of the ruling majority, but are also willing to work with their colleagues on the other side on issues where there is some agreement.

Yes, I realize that the executive and legislative branches are fused in the UK, unlike us. And I also realize that our form of political debate is not as simplistic as Labour vs. Conservative: it's Republican vs. Democrat, blue dog vs. left wing, White House vs. Congress, Senate vs. House ... heck, even Steny Hoyer and Nancy Pelosi get into it, and they're both in leadership positions in the same house and party.

But we should also realize that relying on individual GOP "ranking members" in different House and Senate committees to serve as the loyal opposition to some upcoming Obama administration proposals seems to be inadequate. Question to all readers: would it be a good idea to develop a shadow cabinet that can speak to different categories of issues that come up during the course of the 111th Congress? I'm imagining that we should not only rely on elected officials in Congress. But we should also rely on former elected officials, Governors, and public policy experts. And it should be flexible enough to allow differing viewpoints within the conservative movement.

I would have no idea what to call this "shadow cabinet," and I don't even know that it needs a name. But I'm envisioning a bench of folks that can not only respond with expertise and poise to different items from the Obama administration; I envision these people proposing big new ideas of their own.

Gov. Sarah Palin (AK) can be a Shadow Energy Secretary and talk more about why the "all of the above" strategy is the best plan, while merging that message with economic issues. Gov. Bobby Jindal (LA) can be a Shadow Health and Human Services Secretary and propose ideas like the Medicare reform he's fighting for in Louisiana. Congressman Paul Ryan (WI) can be a Shadow OMB Director, and not only score the budgets proposed by the Obama administration; he can move forward with his "Roadmap for America's Future" agenda in a substantive fashion. Sen. Norm Coleman (MN) ...  ***I hope he pulls through in his recount.*** ... can be a Shadow Ambassador to the UN, continuing his work on transparency of international organizations. Any ideas on who can be other "Shadow Cabinet" members of the GOP?

The baseline of politics in Washington will remain the same: separation of powers tethered majority rules. But at today's Heritage Foundation Conservative Bloggers' Briefing, Heritage President Ed Feulner said that it should be a target-rich environment for conservative as a loyal opposition. (Read Feulner's post below.) I don't know that we want to have that be our primary mentality. Having a "Shadow Cabinet" system that includes folks inside and outside the Beltway gives the GOP a chance ...

• In the short term, to have a high-level (substantively and rhetorically) rapid response system to policy items on the Left as well as to have a legitimate opportunity to work with Democrats on issues where there might be good reason for compromise. This rapid response system can serve as one of the new components of a RightRoots organization.
• In the medium term, to strengthen the political networks inside the Beltway with the grassroots networks outside the Beltway by forging strong issue-based alliances between Congressmen, Senators, national think tanks and the RNC with Governors, legislative leaders, state-based research organizations and state/local parties. (This is another component of building the GOP Farm Team.)
• In the long term, to show a public policy consistency within the party that we can use in future election cycles to show that we are ready to govern instead of relying solely on the failures of those that are currently governing.

Sure, we already have different elected officials have different public policy niches. There just needs to be a more creative and organized fashion to market their ideas and our principles to the American voter. I don't know whether or not this pseudo-centralization at the public policy level will work, but for the next leaders of the Republican Party, it's worth a shot.