Civil Liberties and the Obama Cabinet

^{Related: Barack Obama's Legislative Agenda}

It's a little early to assess where the Obama administration will stand on civil liberties. Early signs are mostly encouraging, but there are reasons for concern with respect to the issues of drug policy and immigration enforcement.

Before we go further, it's important to note that--regardless of how impressive or unimpressive a cabinet official's past civil liberties record might be--Barack Obama will ultimately be shaping his administration's policy agenda. But these appointments are still important for three reasons:

1. Presidential decisions are made under the influence of cabinet officials, who act as subject area specialists in their briefings with the president.
2. Cabinet officials also oversee day-to-day decisions with which the president will not necessarily be as directly involved.
3. The selection of cabinet officials, like the selection of running mates, can provide clues on how a president-elect or nominee is likely to govern in office.

Hillary Clinton as secretary of state is a solid choice, from an international human rights perspective. While her record on domestic civil liberties issues has not been as consistent as would be ideal, her record on international human rights issues is much stronger. In particular, her remarks at the 1995 U.N. Women's Conference in Beijing were some of the strongest ever made by a U.S. representative at an international human rights gathering--condemning, in many cases, the policies of her host government.

Eric Holder as attorney general is more encouraging in some respects and less encouraging in others. Other than his opposition to the death penalty, he is best known in civil liberties circles for his direct criticism of the Bush administration's post-9/11 civil liberties abuses and its expansion of executive power. At a June conference, after condemning the detentions at Guantanamo Bay, the Bush administration's rejection of the Geneva Conventions, the use of torture, and the overall expansion of executive branch power and secrecy, Holder went on to say:

"It is our task over the next several years to reverse the disastrous course that we have been on over the past few years."

If Eric Holder is appointed attorney general, he'll have the opportunity to do exactly that. But his record on some other issues, most notably drug policy, is a cause for concern. Salon.com's Glenn Greenwald has produced an excellent summary of Holder's record on civil liberties issues, including post-9/11 abuses and drug policy.

Obama's selection of Ellen Moran as director of communications is a major pickup for civil liberties activists. While she will not be the public face of the Obama administration, she will craft its public message--and as someone who has spent most of her public life as executive director of EMILY's List, a pro-choice feminist organization, she comes to the position from an unusual activism-focused perspective, one to which issue advocacy on civil liberties controversies is not foreign.

It is also nice to see Bill Richardson, the strongest civil liberties candidate in either party's presidential primaries, join the Obama administration as commerce secretary. He won't oversee many decisions pertaining to civil liberties, but the position will increase his national visibility and could lay the groundwork for a more viable 2016 presidential run.

That's the good news. Now, the maybe-bad news.

Janet Napolitano is a fantastic candidate in many areas, and I am happy to see her on the Obama cabinet, but I would have preferred to see her in a position other than director of homeland security due to her spotty record on immigration policy. Reversing the appointments of these two Southwestern governors--Richardson on homeland security, Napolitano on commerce--would have made me happier. Still, I'm willing to give Napolitano the benefit of the doubt; she vetoed the more punitive immigration bills that reached her desk, at great political risk, and may turn out to be much better on this issue when she doesn't have to worry about getting reelected statewide in Arizona.

Tom Daschle as secretary of health and human services is a mixed bag, to be sure. His record on abortion rights isn't fantastic--although he's pro-choice, he supports enough restrictions that he has a 50% rating from NARAL--but it should be more than solid enough to put an end to the sort of inane HHS policies proposed during the Bush years (where switching to a low-carb diet could be considered a form of abortion), and broader questions of abortion rights won't really be under his jurisdiction anyway. Daschle's appointment is weird symbolically, given that health care was never his signature issue as senator, but his former position as Senate Majority Leader may be just what Obama needs to push through a universal health care plan. I can see why he was chosen, and I suspect he'll do fine.

I'm more concerned about rumors that Rep. Jim Ramstad may become drug czar. While Ramstad is a recovering alcoholic himself and has expressed that he understands the need for a treatment-focused approach to drug policy, he also opposes the legalization of medical marijuana and needle-sharing HIV prevention programs. He was also cosponsor of a bill to ban Internet gambling, which indicates a possible paternalistic bias. But because Ramstad is not responsible for actually enforcing drug laws, it's Eric Holder whose regressive positions on drug policy may be more relevant.

There is also talk that Obama may retain Robert Gates as secretary of defense. While Gates did not join the Bush administration until 2006, and would have been in any case answerable to the president with respect to policy decisions, his complicity in the Bush administration's civil liberties abuses is troublesome. Only time will tell how Gates, and the other cabinet appointees, perform under the new administration.