Obama’s Disappointing First Choice

Obama’s Disappointing First Choice

House Minority Leader John Boehner and other Republican insiders in Washington are griping about President-elect Barack Obama’s selection of Illinois Congressman Rahm Emanuel to serve as White House chief of staff. Emanuel, they complain, is too partisan.

If only that were the case.

Partisan true believers stand strong for the ideals and principles of a party, they want to follow the dictates of the platform and stay in tune with grassroots activists.

Copy Link
Facebook
X (Twitter)
Bluesky
Pocket
Email

House Minority Leader John Boehner and other Republican insiders in Washington are griping about President-elect Barack Obama’s selection of Illinois Congressman Rahm Emanuel to serve as White House chief of staff. Emanuel, they complain, is too partisan.

If only that were the case.

Partisan true believers stand strong for the ideals and principles of a party, they want to follow the dictates of the platform and stay in tune with grassroots activists.

That’s not a description of Rahm Emanuel.

In fact, Emanuel is the opposite of a partisan. He is someone who has worked very hard for a very long time – first in the Clinton administration and then in Congress — to change the Democratic party into a more cautious, centrist and compromised institution. As head of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee in 2006, he actually undercut efforts by progressive candidates who had a chance to win in order to advance the candidacies of more conservative candidates who lost.

Why? Because on the most vital issues–economic and trade policy, war and peace, civil liberties–this true believer in the worst compromises of the Clinton era has frequently been at odds with labor and progressive forces within the party.

So how worried should Democrats who want change they can believe in be about Obama’s decision to make Emanuel the face of the transition process?

Emanuel is best understood as a disappointing choice rather than a definitional selection.

If Emanuel was in line for a key Cabinet position (Treasury, Commerce, Labor or Agriculture), or for the job of US Trade Representative, there would be every reason to fret. In fact, it might well be appropriate to openly and aggressively challenge the appointment of someone so at odds with Democratic values and policy goals to any of those posts.

But a White House chief of staff is not, traditionally, a policy maker or implementer. Rather, the chief of staff is the member of the president’s inner circle who gets things done. A chief of staff who goes against the president’s instincts or goals, or who cannot work with people who hold views different from his own, does not last long.

Rahm Emanuel – whose selection owes more to shared Chicago connections than to shared ideology — is not being brought on to define the Obama administration.

It is Barack Obama’s job to do that. Emanuel’s job is to make sure that what the president wants done actually gets done. He’s good at that, and that is why the new president picked the congressman from his hometown.

Obama wanted someone he knew well, someone he had worked with in the past and someone who he was sure could get the job done to serve as his chief of staff.

He gets all that with Rahm Emanuel as his chief of staff. But Emanuel is not going to be the president, Obama is. And if this administration adopts Emanuel’s compromised positions, it will not be the fault of the chief of staff. It will be the fault of the president.

Disobey authoritarians, support The Nation

Over the past year you’ve read Nation writers like Elie Mystal, Kaveh Akbar, John Nichols, Joan Walsh, Bryce Covert, Dave Zirin, Jeet Heer, Michael T. Klare, Katha Pollitt, Amy Littlefield, Gregg Gonsalves, and Sasha Abramsky take on the Trump family’s corruption, set the record straight about Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s catastrophic Make America Healthy Again movement, survey the fallout and human cost of the DOGE wrecking ball, anticipate the Supreme Court’s dangerous antidemocratic rulings, and amplify successful tactics of resistance on the streets and in Congress.

We publish these stories because when members of our communities are being abducted, household debt is climbing, and AI data centers are causing water and electricity shortages, we have a duty as journalists to do all we can to inform the public.

In 2026, our aim is to do more than ever before—but we need your support to make that happen. 

Through December 31, a generous donor will match all donations up to $75,000. That means that your contribution will be doubled, dollar for dollar. If we hit the full match, we’ll be starting 2026 with $150,000 to invest in the stories that impact real people’s lives—the kinds of stories that billionaire-owned, corporate-backed outlets aren’t covering. 

With your support, our team will publish major stories that the president and his allies won’t want you to read. We’ll cover the emerging military-tech industrial complex and matters of war, peace, and surveillance, as well as the affordability crisis, hunger, housing, healthcare, the environment, attacks on reproductive rights, and much more. At the same time, we’ll imagine alternatives to Trumpian rule and uplift efforts to create a better world, here and now. 

While your gift has twice the impact, I’m asking you to support The Nation with a donation today. You’ll empower the journalists, editors, and fact-checkers best equipped to hold this authoritarian administration to account. 

I hope you won’t miss this moment—donate to The Nation today.

Onward,

Katrina vanden Heuvel 

Editor and publisher, The Nation

Ad Policy
x