Nominee Nightmare

Over at our sister publication the Atlantic (I just love saying that), the estimable James Fallows weighs in again this week on one of his favorite subjects: The failure of the Senate to move with dispatch to pass judgment on nominees for politically appointed posts in government.

Specifically, Fallows decries Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell's move to hold up action on 80 of President Obama's nominees on the grounds that he doesn't like one of them (Craig Becker of the National Labor Relations Board -- who, ironically, already is in his position via a recess appointment).

"This is an insane way to do the nation's business," Fallows writes. He all but throws up his hands in the quest for a long-term solution to the problem, but suggests that the "power of public embarrassment" be used in the short term against serial abusers of Senate "holds."

There's another side to this problem, though. Even if the Senate speedily passed judgment on Obama's nominations, President Obama would have to make close to 1,000 of them (and another 2,000 more that don't require Senate action). As Paul Light is fond of pointing out, one solution to the confirmation crisis is simply to have fewer political appointees. While still a small sliver of the total federal workforce, appointees are a much higher percentage of it than they used to be.

The nation is fortunate to have a highly qualified, dedicated cadre of senior executives who have dedicated their careers to public service. If we as a nation were more willing to put our trust in them (and hold them accountable, of course), maybe we wouldn't be sitting around a year and a half into a president's term wondering when he'll have his team in place.

There is an alternative to the endless transition that has come to characterize the American governance system. Just ask the British.