I'm glad that the expected outrage at President Obama for naming someone other than Elizabeth Warren to head the CFPB has been, thus far, pretty muted. There's been the lamenting liberal, of course, and the initial gnashing of teeth from the threads this past Friday when it was leaked that the pick wouldn't be Warren.
But, for the most part, reactions to the announcement that Rich Cordray has been chosen seem to be in line with this one from Stephanie Taylor at PCCC:
With her track record of standing up to Wall Street and fighting for consumers, Elizabeth Warren was the best qualified to lead this bureau that she conceived -- and we imagine Richard Cordray would agree. That said, Rich Cordray has been a strong ally of Elizabeth Warren's and we hope he will continue her legacy of holding Wall Street accountable.
The always awesome Richard Trumka of the AFL-CIO offered a similar sentiment (excitement that it's Cordray tempered with regret that it isn't Warren).
The AFL-CIO strongly supports the nomination of Richard Cordray to head the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Mr. Cordray has an outstanding record of protecting the public interest as the Attorney General of Ohio and as director of enforcement for the bureau. We are nonetheless disappointed that President Obama chose not to appoint Elizabeth Warren, who was opposed by Republicans and the financial interests that ruined our economy in an atttempt to keep the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau from getting off the ground. We express our deepest appreciation to Prof. Warren for her vision and leadership in establishing the bureau.
In fact, apart from a handful of comments on FDL, the reactions on the Left all seem to be "he's a great second choice." And on the right, bloggers like Ed Morrissey are saying that this is just Warrenism by another name at CFPB.
All this makes me wonder: can anyone think of a nominee who has been, from whatever metric, the absolute best candidate for the job?
Was Biden your first choice for VP back when the name most frequently mentioned was Hillary's? (He wasn't mine, but I think he's turned out very well, and she's been great at State. Had they reversed roles, that would have been at least as good in my book.)
Were you screaming for Sotomayor, or kvelling over Kagan? I certainly had someone else in mind as my ideal candidate, but I like both of our new justices.
What about keeping on Robert Gates at the Pentagon and Ben Bernanke at the Fed? I understood the desire for continuity in both offices, but I would have preferred different people in each role.
How about Ray LaHood or Jon Huntsman, the other two prominent Republican appointments thus far? Are you of a mind with Andrew Jackson that "if there is a job that a Democrat can't do, then abolish the job," or were these appointments ones you cheered? (I liked Hunstman as the pick for Ambassador to China, and I was pretty indifferent to LaHood's selection, but I don't know that either would be headlining my dream team.)
Even some of the best-fit appointments, like Eric Shinseki at VA, might have been better posts for active and popular Democratic figures like Wes Clark or Max Cleland. Holder, Kagan and Katyal at DOJ were fantastic choices, but there are plenty of other Democrats who might have been better Attorneys General, Solicitors General, or deputies.
The point is, the world is full of great candidates for most government offices, and the odds that the President is always going to pick the person we think of as the "best candidate" are nonexistent. We live in a political nation, not a technocracy. We should encourage good choices, fight bad ones, and accept that the "best" person for the job is, as likely as not, going to be unconfirmable, unpopular, or simply not worth the fight as opposed to a strong second-choice candidate.
This shouldn't be taken to mean that "best candidates" ought not be nominated, or that they can never succeed. Those moments are rare, however. The chances of a Benjamin Cardozo coming along when we need him are slim, and the chances of a nominee receiving the sort of bipartisan approbation that Cardozo got are next to nil.
But while our first-choice candidates may not be getting appointed as often as we'd like, this President seems to have been hell-bent on finding people who are more than capable of meeting the organizational needs of the administration and the country. That's not easy, especially with the current Congress.
So my fedora's off to President Obama for his overall record, and my best wishes to Rich Cordray as he fights for confirmation against a hostile Senate GOP more concerned with protecting their jobs than filling the vacant ones both inside and outside government.
And as for Elizabeth Warren, I think we can find something to keep her busy in the months ahead.