John Edwards's "Brownie's Law" Is a Bad Idea

Tuesday, August 28, 2007

JOHN EDWARDS

John Edwards: A man so determined to get the presidency, he'll promise to greatly constrict the powers he would have in that office, if it will help him win it.

I say this in response to his proposal for a "Brownie's Law."

Pass "Brownie's Law," So Agencies like FEMA Get the Job Done: The Bush administration's failed response to Hurricane Katrina demonstrated the cost of cronyism and incompetence in government. The director of FEMA, Michael Brown - previously an ousted commissioner of the International Horse Association - was patently unqualified for the job. Edwards will enact a new requirement - "Brownie's Law" - ensuring that senior political appointees actually are qualified to perform the job to which they are appointed. Brownie's Law will require that heads of executive agencies and other senior officials have demonstrated qualifications in the field related to their job.

I come to bury Brownie, not to praise him. But the right solution isn't some law trying to mandate the resume requirements of appointed officials. It's the job of the legislative branch - and the press - to scrutinize appointees. Edwards' solution would be to take a sledgehammer to a fly. For starters, what is "demonstrated qualifications in the field"? Who would decide what experience counts and what doesn't?

I would ask Edwards supporters, would you say that a man whose primary experience is in running a political party's national committee and running a political convention is qualified to, say, run the Department of Commerce? If no, congratulations, you just disqualified Clinton's Commerce Secretary Ron Brown.

Do you think a Miami prosecutor is sufficiently qualified to step into the top spot at the Department of Justice? If not, you've just eliminated Janet Reno. How about a longtime presidential friend, a magazine editor, and a Harvard professor - think this person, with little administrative experience, is qualified to serve as Secretary of Labor? Sorry, Robert Reich, the Edwards supporters have given you the thumbs-down.

Edwards' law, depending on how it is interpreted, would greatly constrict the amount of talent available for service in appointed offices. We have a system to select qualified people - the president names them, and the Senate confirms them. Edwards' rule could likely rule out most CEOs and those with significant private sector experience - after all, their experience isn't really "demonstrating qualifications in the field related to their job."

You know who has "demonstrated qualifications in the field related to their job"? The previous assistant secretaries and deputy managers and previous members of the established bureaucracy. Changing the culture of an established bureaucracy, as we see at federal departments and agencies, is hard enough. Edwards, substituting a new law for good judgment and careful review by the Senate, would make it pretty much impossible.

UPDATE: Several readers have the same thought: "Would a one-term senator and trial lawyer be qualified for president? When has Edwards demonstrated qualifications in the field related to that job?"

08/28 03:07 PM Share