Too Much Vetting

Here’s a provocative point from Jonathan Bernstein: Given that having an executive branch nominee for a second-tier office withdraw doesn’t do presidents any damage, but having an understaffed executive branch does do damage, why don’t presidents just knock it out with all the vetting?

Yes, less vetting will yield more Hardings, or even (presumably, I guess) worse. Again: so what? A handful of similar cases isn’t going to make much difference to anyone. On the other hand, it will allow some people who currently are unwilling to put their lives on hold to consider public service. Granted, it’s not the only reform that would do that; the next step would be more rapid Senate confirmation or rejection. Still, changing Congressional procedure is hard. Changing White House procedure should be easier — and I’ve proposed a commission to clear the way.

Another benefit of this would be that long delays in sending nominations to the Senate makes it difficult for the White House to mount a political argument of urgency in favor of their confirmation. If the president didn’t see fit to fill the job for months, then it must not be very important to fill it. If the White House took forever to vet the candidate, then surely Congress has an obligation to be equally thorough. If the White House instead took the view that filling positions with qualified people is more important than screwing around with years-old tax forms, then they could argue to the public and the congress that it’s important to confirm qualified nominees first and do congressional oversight later.

I still think it’s important to both reform the congressional process and also reduce the number of positions that require Senate confirmation. I’d also like to reduce the number of political appointees overall and rely more on experienced civil servants as managers. But the next President should strongly consider taking Bernstein’s advice and taking a different attitude toward this whole issue.