The case for a Shadow Cabinet – a positive form of opposition.
snyder.substack.com/p/shadow-cab…— Timothy Snyder (@timothysnyder.bsky.social) January 6, 2025 at 9:11 AM
Timothy Snyder, who famously warned us Do Not Comply in Advance, has a very interesting proposal in his latest SubStack post:
When I moved to Great Britain to study, I found the politics very exciting. The parliamentary system was different, so that new elections immediately led to new governments. The press was excellent but political, so that one could read the newspapers and be informed both of the facts and the sentiments. And, when reporting government policy, journalists always had an opposition voice to quote: members of the “shadow cabinet.”
Like so much else in British public life, the institution of the shadow cabinet was unfamiliar to me, but I soon grew to appreciate and admire it. The “cabinet,” of course, was the assembly of government ministers, led in Britain by the prime minister. The party in opposition (the Labour Party when I arrived in Britain in 1991) appointed its own leading members to “shadow” each government minister, including the prime minister.
Shadow meant follow. The shadow ministers “shadowed” the actual ministers, in the sense of following their every move, criticizing policy and offering alternatives. Importantly, the shadow minister was always available to offer commentary to the press on his or her area of expertise. This greatly enriched public life. At any point a journalist, and thus the public, had access to an alternative point of view, one which was both pertinently expert and politically relevant. Shadow ministers did not always become real ministers after the next elections, but often they did.Four years ago today, Donald Trump led an attempt to overthrow a democratic election and thereby undo our constitutional system. In two weeks, the same man will be inaugurated president of the United States, this time with a centibillionaire as the unelected de facto head of government and with anti-qualified anti-patriots as his cabinet nominees. What to do? People talk about resistance, and about opposition. What forms should these take? I have written elsewhere about what citizens can do. Leading politicians of the opposition party, the Democratic Party in the United States, have a special responsibility, and also special opportunities. One of these is to form a shadow cabinet. I want to join the voices of those advocating for this. (Here I am speaking for the idea on television a few weeks ago.)
In Great Britain, the shadow cabinet represents “the loyal opposition.” The loyalty in question is to the state and to its head, the monarch. In the United States, a “loyal opposition” would be loyal to our Constitution — and, indeed, that could be the basis of its activity. We face the unusual situation of a government — a president and his cabinet — who seem indifferent to the rule of law itself. By beginning from the principle that we have a government of laws, not men, a shadow cabinet would reinforce the American way of politics. It would be a very good thing to have a constitutional lawyer or two on the shadow cabinet.
And a shadow cabinet would remind us of how much better things can be. The regular reactions of its members to Musk-Trump would flow from different sense of politics and policy. That is material that the press needs, and that we all need. As Trump and his cabinet undertake their unpredictable whorl of destructive policy, journalists and others will be at a loss as to what to say. The worse things get, the harder it is to think of an alternative. As time goes by, the chaos of Musk-Trump might seem like the only possible reality. That, of course, will be the goal of the new regime: to persuade us that government just means dysfunctionality, spectacle, and repression. At every moment, members of the shadow government can remind us what government could instead be doing, positively, for the people. They are there to remind us that a better America is always possible…
Yes, there is a problem in that we Democrats are infamously ‘not an organized political party’. But that can be its own strength — we’re not an intellectual monoculture, uniformly susceptible to every passing blight! In any case: Go read the whole thing, and let’s discuss.
Elizabelle
Thank you, Anne. I could not stand seeing that previous post. Always up for Timothy Snyder’s take.
Baud
It would be attention grabbing, but I don’t know how it’s feasible to implement in our non-parliamentary system. Snyder just says those problems are solveable by top Dems. I doubt it.
Omnes Omnibus
I haven’t had a chance to read the full piece, but where does he suggest that the shadow cabinet come from? In Congress, we have something like that with the ranking members of committees, but not for the executive.
Freemark
@Omnes Omnibus: The Democratic just needs the will to do it. These aren’t elected positions so Schumer, Jefferies, and other leaders could choose whoever they can agree on.
Never mind.
Professor Bigfoot
Sounds like a great idea; but how do these “shadow secretaries” get their message out? What actual value will this shadow cabinet generate, given our current media landscape?
Trivia Man
Absolutely agree 100%, been calling for this since GWB. The key phrase here is “offer alternatives”.
Too much fucking “comity” means milquetoast reactions. “We will consider it carefully, offer our views, and work towards a compromise.”
Shadow cabinet means ONE mouthpiece. I am aware all democrats dont agree completely on anything, but i would hope they could agree on “if Kamala Harris had won, this would be our secretary of XYZ.” Every democrat is welcome yo agree, disagree, add nuance, support the republican position… but start with an ACTUAL PLAN. That way, at next election, you have a body of work to show. “Do you like what actually happened?” (My guess: nothing or a shit show everyone hates) “Or would you rather have the proposals we already showed you?”
Instead of always reacting to THEM, say your vision out loud and repeatedly.
SpaceUnit
Great. Let’s do that.
Anything’s better than a lot of pointless navel-gazing.
hells littlest angel
Liz Warren for Shadow Secretary of Commerce, AOC for Labor, Vindman for Homeland Security, Jasmine Crockett for Shadow VP.
schrodingers_cat
What is the shadow cabinet supposed to achieve?
John Revolta
It’s a great idea, but it kinda relies on the concept that our media would give the shadow cabinet equal, or any, public exposure. Not sure our current largely uninvolved citizens would ever get to hear what they had to say. (I’m not saying we shouldn’t do it though. It’s at least a plan, which we seem to need pretty badly ATM, and it wouldn’t really cost anything either.)
zhena gogolia
@schrodingers_cat: Good question.
We have lots of elected Democrats who speak out. The media doesn’t cover them.
Trivia Man
@Omnes Omnibus: It could be anyone. Current senator, former cabinet secretary, subject matter expert (retired general for defense for example).
As for getting the message out, repetition and simple and a single voice. As i said above, let democrats react to THAT and not the bad faith proposals we know we will get.
hells littlest angel
Not addressing anyone in particular, but it’s a lot easier to understand the function of a shadow cabinet if you read Snyder’s article.
comrade scotts agenda of rage
@zhena gogolia:
Sigh, it always circles back to that, don’t it?
Like most here, I puzzle over this and the only thing I keep coming back to is our lack of 24/7/365 messaging.
zhena gogolia
@comrade scotts agenda of rage: Ask yourself why we’ve heard much more about Fetterman and less about Crockett since the election.
Gin & Tonic
@hells littlest angel: You expect people to read a whole article before commenting about it?
ColoradoGuy
Not mentioned in Tim Snyder’s piece, but the GOP already has a Shadow Cabinet. It’s FoxNews, a propaganda mill disguised as a news outlet. But it works as a shadow cabinet … it relentlessly promotes stories, has a consistent cast of opinion-havers and pseudo-newscasters, and forms the official Party Line with (very) few exceptions.
That doesn’t invalidate Mr. Snyder’s post … it underlines the necessity of having a 24/7 “message shop” that does not say “bipartisanship” at every media appearance. It says WE OPPOSE THIS and goes on the record saying so.
There’s always going to be rogue Democrats who are all too eager to appear on the talk shows and make nice with Republicans. The Shadow Cabinet, by contrast, are Democrats Who Matter and speak as the voice of the party.
Maybe it’s time for former Democratic Presidents to speak up and lead the opposition. Yes, That Would Be Partisan. That’s exactly the point. Political parties exist for a reason.
Quaker in a Basement
My #1 draft choice for this is Mayor Pete.
kindness
As opposed to Republicans, the Democratic Party is a conglomeration of many different groups trying to work together to further their aims. Where as the Republican Party under Trump is a cult. MAGA folk are getting whiplash having to hold new vows that are not what they vowed just 6 hours ago. Yet they do it. They’re a cult damn it!
hrprogressive
Great idea.
Call me when you can get democrats to give up their addiction to bipartisanship, and then maybe we’ll talk.
KatKapCC
@schrodingers_cat: Nothing that couldn’t be achieved by removing a couple of ribs.
Jay
@comrade scotts agenda of rage:
The Shadow Cabinet actually plays into what the clickbait Media is looking for.
If they are good at their roles, they become the go to counterpoint for the press.
TBone
When John Wayne wished President Carter well in Carter’s beginning, Duke stated that he was a member of the loyal opposition – the very loyal opposition. Yet he stood by his President one hundred percent.
He’d literally have pissed on Donold for fun. Bone spurs!
schrodingers_cat
I know what a shadow cabinet is. But our system is not a parliamentary democracy where the the Leader of the Opposition is a cabinet post. So its not going to work as it does in a parliamentary democracy.
David Collier-Brown
@John Revolta: The press in Canada strongly prefers to pay attention to the Conservative party, but we see interviews and read op-eds from “her majesty’s loyal opposition”, even back when the opposition was the Bloc Quebecois, the separatist party. (Think of the south at the time of the civil war.)
In fact, I was attracted into politics and campaigning when Hugh Segal, a favourite commentator and arguably an outstanding example of what a shadow minister does, ran for the leadership of his party.
Each opposing party has a shadow cabinet, so you can put together a panel of NDP, Liberal, Conservative, Bloc and Green party folks on a minute’s notice. And that make for great TV and podcasts!
Baud
Question for people familiar with parliamentary systems: How do shadow cabinets deal with proposals by the government that they support?
bcwbcw
The press finds a shadow cabinet but only when Democrats are in power, then every talk show is filled with pretend experts from the Republican party.
David Collier-Brown
@Baud:
They’ll support them, but usually critique them. For example, the NDP supports lots of Liberal initiatives, but will happily tell the Liberals how to make the proposal better. Sometimes in excruciating detail (;-))
Baud
@David Collier-Brown:
Thank you.
Jay
@schrodingers_cat:
Leader of the Opposition is NOT a Cabinet Post. They do not sit in Cabinet, they don’t have a vote in Cabinet.
They have a vote as an MP on the floor, just like any back bencher or other MP, and have a voice during Question Period and Debates, just like any other MP.
Another Scott
Thanks for this, AL, and for the recommendation to read the rest. He answered some of my concerns, there.
However, his closing, …
Dunno if Tony Jay would agree in this instance!! ;-)
More and better ways to get relevant, truthful information to the public is important. This could be a piece of that.
Thanks.
Best wishes,
Scott.
Baud
There’s really nothing stopping any particular Dem from appointing themselves the go-to “shadow” expert for the media in a particular area.
sab
Theoretically good idea but is it even possible?
Would be easier if we hadn’t chopped Biden’s legs off at the knees. I argied with my outraged husband back in July because I was sorry but Ido like Kamala. Now I agree with him.
Our Founding Fathers hated the idea of political parties. So that is the system they setup. Then our diverse country (not everyone is a landed gentleman) came up with its own rules: surprise, surprise: political parties.
Trivia Man
@Quaker in a Basement: Great choice. My vision for this ‘cabinet’ is an expert for each role. He is good and can speak to almost any issue. But if he is speaking to every issue, it gets diluted. Even if he still gets asked… pivot to “the real expert on finance is Senator Warren. She says….” Repeat THAT message. You dont often see Interior Secretary making comments on Transportation issues. If you want a soundbite on the current foreign relations dumpster fire… ask the shadow Sec of State THEIR view.
Trivia Man
@Jay: And i think they get deferred to by their party. That is the FIRST response heard. Consistently.
sab
@schrodingers_cat: Agreed. Our Founding Fathers hated the idea of parties (as I am sure you know. ) Immigrant citizens actually have to know how our stuff works. The rest of us just wing it.
Jay
@Baud:
No, there isn’t, however, Members of the Party’s Shadow Cabinet are the “Official Voice of the Opposition” party, and as a result carry more “weight” in both the Media, the Party and in the House.
During debates for example, the “first” counterpoint is usually from the ranking Opposition Shadow Cabinet Minister. Ditto for Question Period when a Cabinet Minister is standing forth.
It also hones and polishes a MP’s expertise and experience.
chrome agnomen
@Baud: this was my very thought. and as to media coverage, it’s been made very obvious that this will be the work of bloggers, and other left-wing influencers. certainly not the Vichy MSM.
Baud
@Jay:
Appears to be in India
KSinMA
@Jay: Yes, this. The shadow cabinet could be (part of) the propaganda arm of the DMC. It would take awhile to get the MSM accustomed to calling on them, but they would get there in time, if the DNC can learn to do relentless publicity.
Darren
The shadow cabinet system works in the UK (where I grew up) and it works in Canada (where I live) because of party discipline and collective responsibility. It would not work in the US because your parties (and esp the Democrats) have no conception of either concept. I remember reading in Skidelsy’s biography of Keynes the latter describing in a letter his exasperation of US politicians constantly criticizing in public the policy of a government of their own party and advocating completely different policies. In this respect, little has changed since the 1940s.
Baud
@Jay:
Nothing in the US shadow cabinet would be official because we don’t know who our next head of government will be.
ETA: There’s no way to get the rest of our Congress critters to defer to the shadow minister’s position.
Harrison Wesley
This is a very interesting idea. I think it’s worth at least a serious discussion at the DNC level.
sab
@Quaker in a Basement: Mayor Pete might be busy elsewhere, hopefully building a local political career in Michigan.
Kay
If you read the article hes not proposing a formal agency – its a custom, a political designation.
So Trumps Sec of State says X and our shadow Sec of State responds with opposition to X and then explains Y, the better idea.
I wouldn’t call it anything. Just find nine or so good people and do it. If we roll it out with a name we’ll just get bogged down in bullshit. It could really be great but I think not asking permission or approval of media and not giving them a name to obsess on is key. They’re incredibly narrow people. We give them “shadow” and that’s all they’ll talk about. Show, not tell.
moonbat
@Quaker in a Basement: Exactly! Mayor Pete should hold a retreat where he trains the top members of the chosen shadow cabinet on how to go on Fox News and slay. Most of us political junkies can pick an elected official off the top of our heads that would make the perfect spokesperson for any cabinet position.
We can’t all sit around bemoaning the lack of constant Dem messaging and then dump on people who are offering what sounds like a workable solution or at least a piece of it.
I am all for a shadow cabinet.
Baud
@moonbat:
No one is dumping on Synder.
brantl
Don’t call at the shadow cabinet call at the alternative cabinet. You don’t need to do anything to remind people of their deep state idea.
But the people who should be countermanding these people at every turn, that’s a great idea.
sab
@Kay: And when our next nominee tosses half of them to the curb we have chaos in our election.
Baud
@Kay:
Agree that anything like this shouldn’t be given a name.
Remember how the media obsessed over Obama’s “czars” because the Republicans told them to?
Kay
I wouldn’t even admit it exists. “Yes, Mr. Smith responds to the Secretary of Education, always. He’s an enthusiast – education is his passion”
Give them NOTHING. Just do your thing and they can watch.
Suzanne
@moonbat:
I love this idea. It kind of builds up a team, too.
moonbat
@Baud: Okay, dumping on Snyder’s idea then. The depressing effect is the same.
Kay
@sab:
Again, this is not a formal role. Its a political designation.
Did Republicans ok Musk and Ramaswamy with anyone? No. We don’t have to either.
Baud
@moonbat:
So we just accept everyone’s idea blindly because at least their proposing something? Even ideas that contradict other ideas?
The point of this post is for discussed this idea.
brantl
@hells littlest angel: I thank Tim Walz gets the shot for ‘shadow’ cabinet VP.
Omnes Omnibus
@schrodingers_cat: Yes, I don’t object to the concept, but I am not sure how it would be executed.
Jay
@Baud:
We in Canada don’t know who the head of the next Government will be either.
Still have a shadow cabinet. Several actually, each Party has one.
Yes, in all Parliamentary systems, the “Loyal Leader of the Opposition” has greater status than a lowly back bencher,
But they don’t sit in Cabinet, they don’t have a vote in Cabinet, no do they have any of the responsibilities of a Cabinet Minister.
moonbat
@Baud: Sounded to me like the knee jerk reaction from several on here including yourself was “No that will not work” not a discussion of how it might work.
Baud
@moonbat:
No, this is what a serious discussion looks like. No one was being disrespectful. I’m sorry you don’t want to hear about obstacles and downsides.
Baud
Your shadow cabinet doesn’t become the real cabinet if the party wins a majority?
sab
@Kay: If we could actually do this I would like it. Requires
suggestsa lot of unity for a big tent party.Elizabelle
President Biden about to speak at service in New Orleans for NYE victims. Speaking now.
c-span.org/event/white-house-event/president-biden-delivers-remarks-at-service-for-new-orleans-attac…
Omnes Omnibus
@moonbat: I asked how it would work. We got a discussion of how a parliamentary democracy works. We don’t have one. So how do we create similar mechanisms within our system? I am one of this blog’s wild eyed optimists, and I see more problems than benefits at this point.
sab
@Baud: What my mom always said about reasoning with me “You are doing yes, but, again. Every suggestion has a yes, but…this won’t work.”
Elizabelle
Jesus, are Trump voters imbeciles for voting to replace this decent Mourner in Chief with Mr. Me Me Me, I need to grab it all.
But we knew that.
Baud
@sab:
I have no idea what will work. But if the people who make these decisions decide to try something, I try to give it a chance. None of us here are those people.
Enhanced Voting Techniques
Of course the problem with a Shadow Cabinet is there has to be ruling party policy to oppose, and that is starting to looking unlikely as Belle of the Ranch explains.
Jay
@sab:
Parliamentary Cabinets change Ministers all the time.
It rarely causes the downfall of a Government*.
Shadow Cabinets change members all the time, never results in a lost election, unless it’s because of a scandal.
*Freeland’s exit and subsequent attack on Trudeau simply empowered other dissatisfied MP’s to speak out.
Elizabelle
Applause as Biden takes his seat after short remarks. Such a decent and compassionate man.
Jay
@Baud:
Nope. Shadow Cabinet members don’t always win re-election. Some are great attack dogs, weak Ministers. Some get too full of themselves.
Shadow Cabinet members are critics first and foremost, semi-experts in their lane, but that does not always translate into good Team Members.
Omnes Omnibus
@Jay: A good number of us are actually familiar with how it works. A shadow minister is, nevertheless, the presumptive head of that department if the sitting government falls.
zhena gogolia
@Elizabelle: It was a nice four years.
Elizabelle
@zhena gogolia: Yes.
Will be interested to see what he has to say at President Carter’s funeral. And how it gets reported.
montanareddog
I think Snyder, and many of the commenters here, do not sufficiently understand the structural basis of parliamentary systems. The key difference with the US is that Executive and Legislature are not distinct. The (elected) head of the largest party in parliament will become the chief executive of the government and the head of the largest opposition party will be the leader of the loyal opposition. The PM chooses their ministers from among elected members of their party, and the leader of the opposition chooses the shadows from MPs of their party. Hakeem Jeffries or Chuck Schumer is never going to become President by achieving a majority in the Senate or the House. And any shadows they COULD choose are not institutionally equivalent to the departmental heads chosen by a sitting president, and are unlikely to become ministers should someone from their party become president. So if it is not Jeffries or Schumer, who is the elected leader of the Democratic party, from where do they choose their shadows, and who pays the shadows for the years of shadowing the actual Secretary of State, Interior Secretary, Defense Secretary etc.?
zhena gogolia
@montanareddog: That’s a lucid explanation.
Kay
@Baud:
No. Just forget about “shadow cabinet”. It’s limiting. ” Inspired by a shadow cabinet” – a jumping off point.
We can do this anyway we want.
Jay
@Omnes Omnibus:
If a sitting Government falls, if the Loyal Leader of the Opposition can convince the Governor General that they have the MP’s required to form a Majority Government, they get the chance to form a Majority Government, to last until the end of the previous Government’s term.
Otherwise, prorogation, (no Parliament until XX date), an Interim Government under the previous Party’s new leadership, until elections.
In Canada less than 50% of “Shadow Cabinet” members become Cabinet Members if their Party becomes the Government. Less than 50% of Cabinet Ministers, let alone Shadow Cabinet members, last the full term of the Government.
frog
@zhena gogolia:
I am not religious, but miracles come to those who are ready to receive them. There will come a time when Trump and friends will botching something so badly that the press will start covering what Democrats say.
You have to play the lottery in order to win.
schrodingers_cat
@Jay: LOP in the Lower House in India, the Loksabha gets the same perks as a cabinet minister. Of course he/she is not in the PM’s cabinet. Sorry I was not clear.
Jay
@montanareddog:
In Parliamentary Systems, Shadow Cabinet members have all the power of an MP, (they get a vote and a voice, just like any other MP), they are are not institutionally equivalent to the departmental heads, (Ministers) in the Cabinet. They have no say in the running of a Ministry, they are just the designated Opposition critics of the Minister and Ministry.
Baud
The shadow cabinet should be required to always be clad in all black.
Jay
@schrodingers_cat:
So they get more money, more staff, a better pension and a Ministry to Run and a seat and a vote in the Cabinet?
Kay
Schumer and Jeffries would speak on legislation. These designees would speak exclusive!y to the actions of Trump’s cabinet on administrative and rule changes and policy – executive branch.
satby
@schrodingers_cat: same as it does in Britain, offer the opposition party’s reasons for their opposition and make the case for a better solution.
I subscribe to Snyder and read this today. He does explain it well, but I already knew about shadow cabinets in the UK.
Trivia Man
@brantl: the “what might have been” team, feed the buyers’ remorse
zhena gogolia
@frog: Well, then we have Jeffries, Crockett, God knows how many more elected Dems who are up to the job.
schrodingers_cat
@Jay:
Yes, plus an official residence.
No
They also get good press coverage. And are supposed to be the voice of the opposition. Rahul Gandhi is the current Leader of the Opposition in Loksabha right now.
Trivia Man
@Omnes Omnibus:
Perhaps i am even more wild eyed. My vision is to make it an easy soundbite for the stenographer corps. Every. Time. Instead of “opinions differ” they can both-sides it with a sure fire response. No “im studying it” it is … WE HAVE A PLAN THAT IS BETTER.
montanareddog
@Jay: But that is my point. The ministers are not congresspersons in the US system, are for the most part not chosen from the congresspersons, and have to give up their congressional role if they do become ministers. So what is the point of choosing congresspersons as shadows when they will most likely remain congresspersons when the Presidency changes parties?
Kay
I’m picturing an actual public health expert with impressive credentials – preferably a physician – responding to RFK Jr’s dumbest proposals.
Jay
@schrodingers_cat:
So, they are not a member of the Cabinet,
they just have higher economic and social status and perks than a backbencher, no different than a Loyal Leader of the Opposition, who gets a few more social niceties, a few more bucks, a nicer office, free rent, and a few more staff than a normal MP.
schrodingers_cat
@Jay: Pretty much. They do get briefed in case of a national emergency but IDK if BJP still follows those norms.
UncleEbeneezer
I like this in concept but my big question is: would our media go along with this? They’ve been known to cut away from our most prominent Dems making important speeches just to show an empty Republican podium.
montanareddog
I understand that Snyder is a brilliant historian of totalitarian societies, and a valuable pundit on the dangers of democratic backsliding, but he is not a political scientist.
Far better to read Steven Taylor at OTB for an understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of the US political system.
Jay
@montanareddog:
Because there is one expert “go to” Critic for every Cabinet Position and Ministry. Makes the job easier for the so called “journalists and stenographers”.
A key role of their job is to “enforce” message discipline in the Party.
hells littlest angel
And wear loads of mascara, lipstick and fingernail polish. The Dark Shadow Cabinet.
UncleEbeneezer
@KatKapCC: Or keep the ribs and just train with Joe Rogan! (if I’m interpreting your joke correctly, apologies if not)
Old Man Shadow
It’s not a bad idea.
Need to call it something different. Shadow cabinet would quickly be spun into shadowy cabals threatening President Trump and apple pie and Jesus.
We’d also need the media to actually point cameras or print responses or get podcast invites from them. That’s not guaranteed since Democrats aren’t real Americans to the media, but coastal elitists.
montanareddog
@Jay: But the shadow is an institutional role, with the perks that that entails, because they are the official, if not guaranteed, replacement for that role when the executive changes hands. That gives them a weight in the system that nominating a spokesperson per subject in the US opposition, who most likely will never fill that position, does not carry. You could say that Elizabeth Warren is the shadow treasury secretary, and Adam Schiff the shadow AG, and AOC the shadow interior secretary, but that gives them precisely 0 extra pull with the media.
Gretchen
@hells littlest angel: Why replace Walz for shadow VP? He was good at talking to regular midwestern men, especially with his « these guys are weird », which I think will have plenty of examples in the next few years.
I agree that Jasmine Crockett should be among the shadow cabinet somewhere. She’s a very articulate lawyer. Something in the legal realm? There will be lots of legal missteps over the next 4 years.
Omnes Omnibus
@Jay:
Whatever.
Gretchen
@John Revolta: Our media is lazy. Give them a list of people who are guaranteed to answer their questions on any given subject, and they’ll call that person right off rather than tiring themselves out doing shoe-leather reporting. See Maggie Haberman having Trump and Cohen’s direct phone lines and reporting everything they told her as if she’d done any actual reporting.
zhena gogolia
@Gretchen: They’ll never call a Democrat who’s truly in opposition.
hells littlest angel
@Gretchen: I was proposing people who are actual current elected legislators.
TBone
@Kay:
@Kay:
Everything you said here is spot on. We need a Leonard Leo type operation for our side, but with spokespeople. No name.
Jay
@montanareddog:
That’s a big nope.
In Canada, less than 50% of Shadow Cabinet members last a full term, and less than 20%, when their Party becomes the Government, become a Minister, (about 10% in their Shadow Cabinet post).
What makes a good Shadow Cabinet member, (expert critic) does not always make for a good Cabinet Minister.
You don’t put a feral attack dog in charge of herding the sheep.
gene108
What if the British media decided they were going to ignore the shadow cabinet, and only report positive stories about the party in power?
I think the above regarding U.S. media is the pertinent issue regarding a Democratic shadow cabinet.
Omnes Omnibus
@Jay: Have you considered the possibility that Canada may be sui generis in this?
Princess
It’s a great idea. Don’t call it anything. Identify certain Dems who are excellent communicators and are interested and experienced in a particular subject who will be the go-to rebutters and critics of a particular major department. I vote Chris Murphy for SoS. They don’t need to be electeds and it implies nothing about future roles (and no, shadow cabinet members cannot and do not assume they’ll be ministers if their party gains power).
Universities maintain lists of go-to faculty for press inquiries. This is like that. Press are lazy; they’ll like being told who to talk to.
Ideally you want a “leader” of the opposition too. Kamala? In charge of clapping back to Trump.
Omnes Omnibus
@gene108: You’d probably have something like Brexit happen. Why do you ask?
Jay
@Omnes Omnibus:
Have you considered the idea that US Democracy is completely fucked up?
Bill Arnold
@Trivia Man:
This.
Make both-sides (near) zero effort for the press.
cain
@zhena gogolia:
They don’t cover them because it doesn’t get them clicks.
We are stuck with the current atmosphere until we can sideline Google Ads.
Another Scott
Speaking of “Information Warfare”… WhiteHouse.gov:
Good, good.
I don’t recall seeing a “What They Are Saying” announcement like this from the White House before, but they have done is a lot before and I like it a lot. Show and tell people that Presidential actions aren’t just some single guy or gal signing some piece of paper, but rather it’s the result of a big team of people working together on a problem, and have that team help sell it. Kinda sorta like a shadow cabinet.
;-)
Best wishes,
Scott.
cain
@comrade scotts agenda of rage:
Nope, I don’t think that’s it. We are considered boring. Even our liberal shitposters like Young Turks or whatever doesn’t get any coverage.
I’m hoping that cable goes down the drain and conservative messaging isn’t around a few of these big places like Fox News.
What we can control is that conservative media needs liberal outrage. We can fix that by retreating to our safe spaces.
and I have said repeatedly for fucking years, stop watching 24 hour news and having subscriptions Washington Post and New York times. I suspect some of you still have subscriptions or watch MSNBC.
We are FEEDING THE MACHINE. They need you so that they can get you outraged with teh latest conservative bullshit.
ETA right now the cable news are salivating at Trump coming back in charge because all of us democrats are going to be triggered. This is to some extent is why I said I want to do less politics but for some reason I still post here :D
Omnes Omnibus
@Jay: Yes, oddly enough, I have. Of course that has fuck all to do with how shadow cabinets function in parliamentary democracies. But thanks for reminding me.
Gretchen
@moonbat: Media training by Mayor Pete for opposition experts is a great idea. I think if the media is told, call this person for comments on environmental issues, this one for military, this one for energy, etc., and the designated person will always answer your calls, give you a comment on emerging news in their area, and be on your tv shows, they’ll take the easy way and call that person rather than looking for comment from people who may not call them back. Lazy works for us.
montanareddog
@Jay: I will just go back to my original point. Shadow ministers in the US system would be just a rebranded name for official spokespersons because, to have a shadow cabinet, you need a shadow chief executive, and there is no shadow President in the US until 3 months before the Presidential election.
Rebranding official, or go-to, spokespersons as “shadow ministers” would be meaningless because they are legislators unlikely to become those ministers
Jay
@Omnes Omnibus:
the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.
Omnes Omnibus
@Jay: Do you even read what other people write?
cain
@Omnes Omnibus: typical gen X response. ;)
montanareddog
@montanareddog: or to put it another way, the shadow cabinet is a government in waiting. Members of Congress who are specialists in a particular area like Finance or Oversight or Homeland Security are not part of the government in waiting.
Omnes Omnibus
@cain: Meh.
Jay
@montanareddog:
Who is the Official Democratic Party Spokesperson on Immigration?
There isn’t one.
As others have pointed out, a “Shadow Cabinet” is just a list of “contact” persons specific to individual departments and issues who also maintain message discipline across the Party.
So when some “media” asks AOC for her “hot take” on some specific DOGE fuckery, she just tells them “you will have to go to Hellen Hunt for comment on that, here is her number, email and office phone number”.
RaflW
The US press should love this, if it happened. Lots of lazy “he said, she said” packages. But at least we’d get our messages out. I’m not too hopeful that Dems will figure out that this is a good idea, but we can try and push it, can’t we?
Unknown known
Living in the UK I was a bit taken back by the glowing description of British political press and deep expertise of cabinet ministers. Then I saw her was writing about 1991 and the penny dropped. The Blair era, when it was seen as a virtue for politicians to know stuff.
The culture wars have been imported here, and Johnson and Farage showed that glib smears work just fine. The British press is not much better at dealing with absolute shamelessness than their American counterparts. Now Shadow cabinet commentary has been pulled into the big vortex of dumb: News stories here give their preferred slant on what the gov is doing, then end with an obligatory 2 sentences from the relevant shadow opposition member saying “this is all appalling”, and life moves on, not really any much more enlightened.
It’s a perfectly fine idea, but don’t expect it to change all that much.
Splitting Image
@Kay:
In theory this would be wonderful, but in practise this would be yet another in a long series of Creationist debates, because the whole Republican party has given itself over to Creationism. They just Gish Gallop over everything the expert says.
The fundamental problem here is that this constant lying ought to have hurt them with voters and it basically hasn’t.
montanareddog
@cain: IIRC, Omnes is a late Boomer, or Generation Jones if you prefer (which I do as I am of the same cohort and have more in common those born in the late 60s, early 70s as those from the post-war/1950s generations).
But I suspect I am missing a joke in your remark :-)
montanareddog
@Jay: I give up.
Saying that the US should have a shadow cabinet is just “Underpants Gnomes” political science and I will leave it at that.
Omnes Omnibus
@RaflW: Take a look at the comment right below yours.
Randal Sexton
How about also a shadow Supreme Court with actual constitutional scholars too
Jay
@montanareddog:
It was a simple question,
Who is the Democratic Party Spokesperson on Immigration?
Should have a simple answer.
Aussie Sheila
@schrodingers_cat:
Leader of the Opposition is not a Cabinet post. That’s the whole point! It’s a position created by the political Party in Opposition, in order to lead the Party in Opposition.
JFC!
Unknown known
@montanareddog:
You are substantively right, but the idea of shadow cabinet as a gov in waiting is a pretty notional thing. There are no guarantees any of them would be given those actual cabinet positions if they won.
In practice it’s mostly a messaging device that also encourages MPs from the out-of-power party to do a bit more homework than they might (though few MPs are genuine serious experts – that’s the job of the civil service, at least in theory).
So it would take a little adaptation (you couldn’t use the “gov in waiting” frame) but you could run a broadly similar idea of nominating official point people for different topics in Congress, just for media and research purposes. That’s not crazy, and it might take
cain
@montanareddog:
Both of you are closer to me as a early Gen Xer born on the cusp of 1970.
But the Gen Xers were always the one to use either “Whatever” or “meh” (meh is shared with millennials I think) We also used words like “bad” to mean the opposite of the actual meaning of “bad”.
Aussie Sheila
@Jay:
Exactly. A shadow Cabinet exists to coordinate the elected members of the Opposition and speak with one voice on a Cabinet decision or policy.
Why is that so hard?
Jay
@Aussie Sheila:
Because it’s not Democratic Party members throwing stones at the Democratic Party,
that’s why it’s so hard and alien to so many commenter’s here.
Omnes Omnibus
@cain: Dude. We did it first. And bad as good? I’m just talkin’ about Shaft.
narya
To get back to the original post: I think we have some of that, at least on evening MSNBC, which is all I can manage mostly. Warren on economic issues; Pete on transportation; Whitehouse on SCOTUS; Raskin on J6; Jeffries and Crockett and AOC as well. The part we’re missing (well, one part…) is getting some people to STFU and refer to people like Whitehouse. I don’t know how to get people to do the STFU part; some genuinely disagree, and some want the spotlight.
Aussie Sheila
@Jay:
Sometimes I think it’s a chicken and egg situation. The Democratic Party elected leadership can’t effectively lead their Party in Congress because their membership and partisans are too busy complaining that the Party is weak and doesn’t lead.
It’s absolutely bonkers and would be funny if the stakes weren’t so high right now.
Omnes Omnibus
@narya: Yes, the Democratic coalition is not going easily adapt to a policy of letting one person speak for it on any topic.
MinuteMan
Musk is not a centibillionaire but rather a hectabillionaire; he’s also a skipping dipshit Nazi but that doesn’t excuse innumerable.
Aussie Sheila
@Omnes Omnibus:
Well that’s a pity. Because the need for a well organised and functioning Democratic Party has never been higher. It’s bad politics and worse, it’s dangerous politics. Absolutely irresponsible in the circumstances.
Steve in the ATL
@zhena gogolia:
Which is why it has no place here!
narya
@Omnes Omnibus: I think one of the things that makes Warren and Whitehouse (e.g.) so effective is that they propose specific objections AND alternatives, rather than just bipartisanish blather. I want more of that. Maybe Wikler can facilitate some of that if he wins? It’s not that hard to be clear about the goals and objections, even if there’s discussion about details on alternatives.
Aussie Sheila
@narya:
The reason so many Dem electeds ‘blather’ is because they are not there to push a policy or proposal, they are there on the networks to burnish their visibility in their Districts/Electorates.
Apart from Sen. Whitehouse, Warren and a couple of others, they are a deeply unimpressive and unserious bunch.
As for Schumer, what is his point apart from being ‘leader’ of Senate Dems? Is being ‘leader’ just a title or do you have actual communication tasks beyond Press gaggles on the steps of Congress?
TS
@Baud:
They voice their agreement and they vote for them. There are many situations where both parties agree on legislation
Another Scott
@narya: Devil’s Advocate:
Warren was for the “Green New Deal”.
Spanberger was not a supporter of the GND “overall” in 2019. (Spanberger is running for VA Governor this year.)
The GND quickly became a rallying cry for the other side, with their usual lies and distortions, and a way to split the party. When it came up for a vote in the Senate, the vote was 57:0 with 4 Democrats voting against it (60 votes were needed; the rest of the Democrats voted “present”).
It seems clear that it would be nearly impossible (without a lot of major changes) to have some sort of “shadow cabinet” for Democrats to be anything other than a collection of people who were willing to be experts on some topic and willing to provide sound bites on that topic. That could be valuable, but there’s no way that I can see that other elected officials would want to be bound by those opinions and sound bites. So, it probably wouldn’t have any more weight than the usual reporter’s rolodex of people they call when they need a quote for a story.
But, as I said above, anything that helps get facts and accurate information about Democratic policies out to people is worth thinking hard about.
Thanks.
Best wishes,
Scott.
Madeleine
I have only skimmed Snyder and the comments, so what I’m about to write is ill-informed, but based on my professional experience. Shadow cabinet seems like an interesting idea as a rough framework that would have to be reimagined in the US’s non-parliamentary system—a kind of metaphor for something that Democrats might develop. Reimagined is fundamental: be free to keep useful aspects, critique what doesn’t fit in order to figure out we need.
Another point: I find it interesting that several people propose Pete B as the central figure. No one, as far as I saw, proposed the central figure from the recent election: Kamala Harris.
Madeleine
@narya: yes, something like what you propose!
narya
@Another Scott: I can see that it needs some tweaking—but that’s where people can maybe be trained to say that “we agree on some basic goals, and we will continue to work out the ways to work toward those goals.” And also: we oppose the R approach because X.
narya
@Madeleine: personally I’m waiting to see what she wants to do, but I’d definitely put her on the list.
Gretchen
@Trivia Man: The Stenographer Corps”. Good description. So we designate someone to give them dictation on any given subject.
cain
@Omnes Omnibus:
Whatever.
waspuppet
@ColoradoGuy: This is exactly what I was coming here to say. Donald Trump was a shadow president for four years. He’s too stupid to know what that is, but that’s the function he performed. We need that. It would be best to have it structured like Snyder says, with every department represented, but we need a shadow president. I’m good with it being Harris, but someone has to do it.
zhena gogolia
@waspuppet: Once again: the media will never treat a Democrat as shadow president, the way they did Trump. He couldn’t have done it by himself.
NotMax
Quasi-topical, courtesy of OTR.
;)
dww44
@Aussie Sheila: I think implementing a version of the shadow cabinet could begin to address some of our messaging issues while also making it easier for the party to speak with one voice. It won’t cost anything and might lead to something good.
Aussie Sheila
@Another Scott:
Here’s an idea. How about elected Dems have, I don’t know, meetings or something to hash out a position, and ensure just one person goes out to put it, and is the go to for journalists?
You know, like a disciplined and organised outfit.
BellyCat
@ColoradoGuy: This. Forget “convincing” the media. BE THE MEDIA.
Madeleine
@narya: agreed that KH will be making her own plans. I was mostly pointing out that her perhaps been overlooked,, and it raised my hackles a bit.
Ksmiami
@Kay: 100 percent resistance. Question everything and we all know Republicans suck at actual governing
Ksmiami
@Splitting Image: I am hoping bird flu wipes them out.
Another Scott
@Aussie Sheila: They do that once every 4 years, under the direction of the Presidential candidate. It’s the “party platform”.
The Biden-Harris 2024 Platform (92 page .pdf)
One person’s views drove it. That person won the party nomination, so they led the group that drew it up.
Lots of important Democrats didn’t agree with parts of it. There’s no mechanism here to “enforce party discipline” the way there is in the UK parliamentary/party system. Hence the “Democrats in Disarray” trope.
When there’s no agreed national candidate, who’s going to lead the work to get that next 100 page policy statement to define policy??
Our system isn’t going to have policy agreements the way parliamentary systems do. (We get unanimity on legislative votes because they spend months working on every sentence and clause in the text to get agreement. We usually won’t have that unanimity in coming up with sound bites on the other party’s proposals.)
My $0.02.
Thanks.
Best wishes,
Scott.
Gretchen
@Madeleine: I think that Pete keeps being mentioned is because he is such an effective communicator. Of course Kamala should be part of the effort if she wants to be.
Trivia Man
@Jay: not even official spokesperson … who can be a reliable source for substantive LEFT LEANING takes on specific issues? Immigration discussions without demonization. Tax goals without trickle down. Regulatory goals that aren’t “end them all”. Labor goals that aren’t “whatever tge business owner is willing to do voluntarily “.
Gvg
@Aussie Sheila: His job is supposed to be lead the senate democrats. Normally in the past, it didn’t involve speaking to the public much except his own voters. People are expecting him to do things that aren’t his job because they want certain results, aren’t getting them and are flailing around trying to find some big “name” leader to make it all better. We have been doing this with the other jobs too.
there is no official job to be media spokesperson. And the ones whose job come closest to that can’t always get the media to publish what they say if the bosses don’t like it or the masses might be bored.
Schumer is supposed to lead his caucus. The public should barely know but the caucus would how effective he is at that. Also if he can count the votes correctly. If he gets it wrong, we would notice that.
For a long time McCain was the Republican spokesman to the media. It was unofficial I think, but he had them liking him so much, he was on TV all the time. Personality counts.
I hate so say it but we need a McCain. Congressmen who spend years smoozing with the media and get them all to love him her and think that person is great TV or a great interview and reliable to show up or whatever. No matter how sickening it may look to us, someone probably several someone’s, need to start being very nice to many members of the media. Possibly even owners. Suck up.
Trivia Man
@Omnes Omnibus: He’s a bad … Shut Your Mouth!
Trivia Man
@Omnes Omnibus: I don’t see it as “letting one speak for all”. I see it as a clear opposing perspective. Everyone can still prance around and look Serious. Right now all they seem to muster is “republican idea is crazy!” True… but you cant beat something with nothing. Trump said X about the budget, elizabeth warren said Y. “She makes a good point that… blah blah blah.”
Omnes Omnibus
@Trivia Man: Actually, I think there is a germ of an idea here. Perhaps small teams of people who have policy expertise could be designated as spokespeople. Representing the breadth of the coalition. They could harp on how any given GOP policy is bad from left, liberal, and centrist POVs. Right now we don’t really need to offer an alternative. We just need to oppose bad policy. Calling it a shadow cabinet is Vw probably the wrong way to describe it as any government major will lose their shit over the definition as we saw tonight.
Maybe we could call the cells and have them report upward to a higher cell who also…. Wait, that’s probably a bit fraught as well.
satby
This sentence shows you really aren’t as well informed as you think you are about our politics here. I mean, aside from all the other ways you demonstrate it.
NotMax
@Omnes Omnibus
Agreed. Too much like the opposition to the SOTU address, which one can safely say is greeted with thunderous apathy.
Solos work in opera, a chorus works in the media (assuming they can even gain access).
frosty
The Democrats? Hahahaha!!!
Kathleen
@zhena gogolia: But they would call a “Democrat” who constantly belittles Democrats!
Kay
I think the most reliable indicator that an organization needs a revamp and new ideas is when any change of any kind is resisted because its seen exclusively and narrowly as a criticism of current members.
We need fresh eyes and new ideas. We’re losing.
Sister Machine Gun of Quiet Harmony
We do need an official panel of experts from current legislators, DNC members, and liberal think tanks. They need a weekly podcast, Instagram presence, and Bluesky feed in Spanish and English. If they get enough of a social media presence, the message will get out.
Kay
Other than the ACA Democrats have not passed any permanent additions to either the social safety net or civil rights since the 1970s. In fact, we lost two – reproductive rights and voting rights – the “Crown jewel” of the Civil Rights Acts, the Voting Rights Act, is gone.
If we’re not growing we’re dying, and we’re not growing.
terraformer
Love this idea, but quibble with “(A Shadow Cabinet would provide) material that the press needs, and that we all need”
Based on *waves hands*, I’m not sure that the press *wants OR needs* this kind of thing. It’s sorely needed, for sure, and would be an integral part of the Dems’ new communication strategy.