The crisis in the financial markets has directed voters' attention to the economy as the most pressing issue in the presidential campaign. But the fiscal crisis should do more than that; it should make clear that we don't just select a single leader when we vote, but an entire administration. Many of the regulatory decisions - or, more appropriately, deregulatory decisions - that fostered the meltdown on Wall Street were made by presidential appointees without direct involvement by the President.
This same pattern can be seen throughout the bureaucracy. When Hurricane Katrina hit, the President did not decide how to respond, his appointee to head the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), did. President Bush may have thought that FEMA director Michael Brown was "doing a heck of a job," but the facts were otherwise. Another presidential appointee, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, was similarly ineffective in running his slice of the bureaucracy. A recent inspector general report found that Gonzales "bears primary responsibility" for the improper firing of U.S. attorneys for partisan political reasons. The report concluded that Gonzales "abdicated" his role as head of the Department and was "remarkably unengaged."
The President may be a "decider," but most decisions are made elsewhere in the bureaucracy. Critical questions of monetary, environmental, and social policy will be made by people other than the President because the President cannot possibly take part in every critical decision the federal government makes that affects people's lives. He has to rely on delegates.
We do not know, of course, the names of the people who will ultimately fill key posts in an Obama or McCain Administration. (Though the last debate revealed Warren Buffett as a top contender for Treasury Secretary regardless of who wins.) But we do know a great deal about how the candidates will go about selecting them.
One valuable insight comes from a key post the candidates have filled already: the selection of their running mates. Both candidates announced the criteria they would use before making their picks. Senator Barack Obama explained that the most important factor for him in selecting a vice president would be "Is this person ready to be president?" The second question was "Can this person help me govern?" Senator John McCain similarly stated that he wanted someone who is "fully prepared to take over" and someone who "shares your values, your principles, your philosophy and your priorities."
How did the candidates do in meeting these benchmarks? A recent MSNBC poll reveals reason for doubting McCain. While 74 percent of voters believe Senator Joe Biden is qualified to serve as president, only 41 percent believe that Governor Sarah Palin is.
The candidates' differing approaches to creating an administration can be assessed in another critical way as well. The people they select likely will share not only their policy stances, but their approaches to making decisions. George W. Bush made it clear from the outset that he is a "gut player" who "rel[ies] on his instinct" to make decisions. (His infamous assessment of Russian Prime Minister Vladmir Putin from looking in his eye and "get[ting] a sense of his soul" is one of many examples of his general approach.) It is therefore unsurprising that President Bush has presided over an administration that has reflected this same governing style, rejecting science and expertise in favor of political instinct. The last eight years are replete with examples of the Bush administration agencies dismissing science and expert assessments on everything ranging from global warming to an over-the-counter morning-after pill to the toxicity of mercury.
John McCain shares some of President Bush's tendencies. He wrote in his 2002 book that he doesn't "torture myself over decisions," instead making them "as quickly as I can." Reports reflect that the decision to tap Sarah Palin as his vice presidential pick was an example of his style. It is therefore likely that a McCain administration will reflect this approach as well.
Barack Obama, in contrast, is data-driven and methodological in his decisionmaking. His campaign advisers are leading experts in their respective fields, and his administration would likely rely on the best available empirical evidence as well.
Much has been written about how McCain's impulsive streak or Obama's emotional steadiness might affect their presidencies. But the real key is how these traits will influence whom they select to serve in their administration and how those people will govern. It is on this score, as much as any other, that John McCain is hard to separate from George W. Bush.
President Johnson, our last great president, understood what was expected of a leader, and he did not sit by idly when New Orleans was hit under his watch; President Johnson showed up immediately, to calm and care for those who were affected.
But, to your point, Ms. Palin followed the Bush model in naming incompetent cronies to her administration in Alaska, and Mr. McCain', given his misguided loyalty to pals like Phil Graham, could be expected to do the same. Senator Obama and Senator Biden, on the other hand, are likely to populate their administration with capable, intelligent people with whom they could confer regularly and in whom they could invest enormous, well-placed trust.