A Progressive Critique of the
Biden Cabinet
President Joe Biden’s cabinet picks draw from a similar pool as the past two Democratic administrations. Like Barack Obama’s, Biden’s administration includes public servants with ideas from the Clinton era and beyond. After the 2008 election, Obama staffers saw former officials of the Clinton administration, including Hillary Clinton herself, enter the White House yet again. Progressive staffers were angry that Obama, pressured by the party and relatively inexperienced, had filled his cabinet with these moderate Democrats after his progressive ideas won him the nomination. Now, Biden staffers have a “similar sense of dread” about former officials from the Obama administration. But they should not be surprised. Biden is doing what he said he would: returning politics to normal. Given his cabinet nominations, many of whom will lead a large part of the policy agenda of the next four years, it is naïve for progressives to think that because Biden has been elected, he will suddenly pivot to an agenda closer to theirs. To many progressives, looking closer at Joe Biden’s administration reveals adherence to catastrophic foreign policy, defense of torturers, and hidden corporate influence. It is harmful for moderate Democrats to double down on unsuccessful policies like foreign interventions. We should hold all of our leaders accountable to act morally and effectively, and call them out on destructive decisions. With a thin majority in the House and Senate, Democrats should reevaluate their messaging and priorities in order to advance widely popular policies that benefit the American people.
​
For secretary of state, Biden has tapped Antony Blinken, who is typical of the Washington foreign policy establishment, and is not novel in his perspective on US global power and interventionism. On numerous occasions he has advocated for military intervention in other countries. Blinken defended Biden’s 2003 vote in favor of the Iraq war by saying it was a “vote for tough diplomacy,” which, after seventeen years, has not succeeded. The vote for the Iraq war was bipartisan, and no one could know how it would end, but today Blinken is among the few who argue in favor of the war. In fact, 64% of veterans, who are probably the most qualified to speak on this issue, believe the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were not worth fighting. Blinken continued his hawkish approach when he supported the US intervention in Libya. After much deliberation, in 2011 President Obama decided to enter Libya in response to a government crackdown on political protests. It may be a relief for progressives to hear that Joe Biden disliked the idea. The aftermath was the death of Muammar al-Quadaffi, a struggle between militias to fill the power vacuum, the expansion of ISIS, and an exodus of Libyan refugees to European countries. Obama himself later called the Libyan invasion the “worst mistake” of his presidency. Nevertheless, Antony Blinken broke with Biden when he defended the intervention in Libya, which can give a glimpse at how he could act in a similar situation. Blinken’s nomination was, unsurprisingly, met with relief from career diplomats after what they believed was a disruptive administration under President Trump. Despite his warm welcome to Washington, Blinken’s jump to defend US interventions should alarm anyone with hopes for a fresh approach to peacemaking. One striking example of a new, bipartisan approach is the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, which is funded by not only George Soros but also Charles Koch. The institute advocates for “vigorous diplomacy in the pursuit of international peace.” To see Soros and Koch, two people with practically opposite political views, support restraint in foreign policy clearly demonstrates its broad appeal. It is undoubtedly admirable to want to help people abroad, but Blinken should reassess interventionism in the light of past failures.
​
Biden’s national security pick is likely the most unacceptable to progressives. Avril Haines, Biden’s choice for director of national intelligence, was heavily involved in the drone strike program under Obama and chose not to prosecute torturers. In 2010, as a national security legal adviser, Haines oversaw drone strikes, covert CIA programs, and classified Pentagon operations. She also supported current CIA director Gina Haspel’s nomination in 2018. Haspel had direct oversight of a CIA torture program in 2002. In 2007, the Senate began a years-long investigation into CIA torture methods, including waterboarding, forced standing, prolonged sleep deprivation, and confinement in boxes.
Under US and international law, these methods are all torture. Furthermore, they were deemed ineffective by the CIA itself internally. The CIA even wrote that a quarter of the people held as suspected terrorists should never have been detained in the first place. When the report came out in 2014, despite massive evidence of US and international law violations, Avril Haines decided not to discipline any agents.
​
Lastly, progressives should scrutinize the corporate ties in Biden’s cabinet. First is retired Gen. Lloyd J. Austin, a former commander in Iraq, and Biden’s secretary of defense. After retiring, he served on the board of Raytheon Technologies, one of the world’s largest defense contractors. Raytheon has been greatly criticized for selling bombs to Saudi Arabia that resulted in thousands of civilian deaths in Yemen. Several of Biden’s other advisors have had positions at one consulting firm, WestExec Advisors. Blinken and Haines have both worked there, as well as many others. WestExec has drawn backlash over its consulting of defense contractors and foreign governments, especially by progressive organizations. Additionally, because WestExec does not formally lobby in government, their executives do not have to disclose client lists before entering public office. Instead, they subtly use their personal connections to politicians to influence the government. There is great risk in allowing corporate ties into government, especially ones that are hidden to the public. Democrats need to be much more transparent if they want to be seen as the party of working people.
Biden won the election, but given the millions of votes for Trump, it is clear that much of the country dislikes standard politicians. Mainstream Democrats should reassess how they are perceived and aim to change their messaging to advance bold and popular ideas. Most of their policies are widely popular on a national scale, and yet Democrats struggle to maintain a strong lead over Republicans. According to the Pew Research Center, 63% of Americans say the government should be responsible for health care, with 36% saying the government should be totally responsible, and 26% saying there should be a mix of public and private programs. An astounding 85% endorse paid medical leave for workers, while 67% support paid leave to take care of family members; 82% support paid leave for new mothers, and 69% for fathers. Additionally, 67% support a national $15 minimum wage. According to Reuters, 64% agree that “the very rich should contribute an extra share of their total wealth each year to support public programs,” including 53% of Republicans. Pew also says that 63% favor making tuition at public colleges free. Finally, 58% say “major changes” are needed to improve policing. With this level of support, Democrats should not have lost seats in the House. The issue lies in how they are seen, not what they stand for.
​
John Harris of Politico says that progressives believe “the answer to [Democratic failures] is a more creative politics of mobilization—putting forth a bolder agenda...that excites people who should naturally vote Democratic but often don’t vote at all.” In contrast, moderate Democrats believe that the party will succeed by appealing to moderate Republicans. However, even though Democratic policies have large majorities in favor, Joe Biden only got 51.3% of the popular vote. Prior to the Georgia Senate runoffs, Democrats had a net gain of one Senate seat, despite preparations for nearly a dozen. In the House, they lost eleven seats. These losses look like a comedy of errors in comparison to what should have been a massive success. After Obama’s massive victory in 2008, the Democratic Party lost sight of its strengths. Finding and promoting people like Barack Obama, with the ability to inspire and advance progressive ideas, would show that the Democratic party is the party of the people. Democrats should reconsider their image and who they want to put in the top positions of government. A Raytheon board member as defense secretary, a secretary of state with undisclosed foreign connections, and a director of national intelligence who justified war crimes do not make the government “work for the people.” In a quote that even further demonstrates this divide, Biden’s website continues: “The next president must demonstrate with their actions – not empty words – that public servants serve all Americans, not themselves or narrow special interests.” Everyone who is concerned about these issues should push Biden and his administration to live up to that standard.