Barrack Obama Assembles Powerful West Wing , Infuential Advisers May Compete With Cabinet

Presidents  have  long  strived  to centralize  influence  in  the  White House,  often  to  the frustration  of their  Cabinet  secretaries.  But  not since Richard M. Nixon tried to abolish the majority of his Cabinet has a president  gone  so  far  in  attempting to  build  a West Wing based  clutch of  advisers  with  a  mandate  to  cut through    or  leapfrog    the  traditional bureaucracy. Obama’s  emerging  “super Cabinet”  is  intended  to  ensure  that  his domestic priorities   health  reform, the  environment  and  urban  affairs   don’t  get  mired  in  agency  red tape  or  brushed  aside  by  the  ongoing economic meltdown and international crises. Half a dozen new White House positions have been filled by well known  leaders with experience navigating Washington turf wars.

But  some  see  the  potential  for chaos within the administration. “We’re  going  to  have  so  many czars,”  said  Thomas  J.  Donohue, president  of  the  U.S.  Chamber  of Commerce. “It’s going to be a lot of fun, seeing the czars and the regulators  and  the  czars  and  the  Cabinet secretaries debate.”

Carol M. Browner, who  ran  the Environmental Protection Agency in the Clinton administration,  is  taking on  a  broad  new  portfolio  with  responsibility  for  Osama’s  ambitious agenda  on  the  environment,  energy and climate change.

Bronx  politician Adolfo Carrion Jr.  is  expected  to  serve  in  another new White House  post,  implementing Obama’s education and housing agenda for cities.

Former  senator Thomas A. Daschle  will  become  the  first  Cabinet secretary  in  decades  to  have  an  office in the West Wing and a separate, newly  created  White  House  title: director of  the Office of Health Reform.

Daschle’s  confirmation  hearing to  become  secretary  of  health  and human services begins today.

In interviews, several top Obama advisers  said  they  are  extending  to domestic  affairs  a  model  of  governance  that  has  long  been  used  in foreign policy, in which the national security adviser manages diplomatic and military matters from a perch in the White House  that  offers  him  or her ready access to the president.” Given the enormity of the challenges we  face,  it  is critical  to have someone  in  the White House  every day,  reporting  to  the  president,  coordinating  policy  and  giving  these issues  the  important  focus  they  deserve,”  said  Obama  spokeswoman Stephanie Cutter. “It allows for efficient, streamlined decision making.”

But Bruce Herschensohn,  a professor  of  foreign  policy  at  Pepper dine University who was deputy special assistant to Nixon, said Obama’s plans  for  the White House could do the opposite.

“It’s  adding  a  layer  of  bureaucracy  rather  than  really  eliminating one,”  said  Herschensohn,  recalling Nixon’s  failed  attempt  to  eliminate all  but  four  Cabinet  agencies.  “Everyone will  be  fighting with  everybody. You’ll have conflict with every Cabinet officer who will now have a superior in the West Wing or” the adjacent Eisenhower Executive Office Building.

If  executed  poorly,  empowering a small team inside the White House can  lead  to  insular decision making and  the  alienation  of  those Cabinet secretaries  outside  the  loop,  said historian I.M. Destler, a professor at the University of Maryland’s public policy school.

“It tends to lead to disruption, and sometimes  chaos,  in  terms  of  how the  larger government works,” Destler  said.  “It  cuts  out  other  people. They  think  the  worst  about  what’s going  on  in  the White House. Loyalty to the president is diminished.”

There is also a danger that a weak adviser,  or  one who  is  perceived  as having lost the backing of the president, will  not  be  able  to  corral  the necessary government resources, becoming ineffective or irrelevant.

“Are  all  these  people  really  going to have the relationship with the president  that  they  need?”  Destler asked. “He seems to be placing a lot of faith in his own ability to manage a team. How much is he going to do it directly?”

G.  Calvin Mackenzie,  a  professor of politics at Colby College, said Obama also risks bogging his White House down with minutiae better left to the Cabinet agencies.

“The dark side of  that  is  that  inevitably  the White  House  gets  into micromanaging and it minimizes the importance  of  the Cabinet  secretaries,” Mackenzie said. “The thing that might make it less than inevitable is that they are starting with this structure in place from the beginning.”

Top  Obama  advisers  spent months  studying  the  internal workings of previous administrations and came away convinced  that high priority  issues  require  a White  House coordinator  akin  to  the  national  security adviser. White House veterans say the new posts are the clearest signal  yet  that  the  incoming  president has no patience for  the resistance  to change that permeates the capital.

“He’s  taking  his  top  priorities and doubling down by making  sure they  are  operating  in  full  coordination in the White House as well as in the agencies,” said Patrick J. Griffin, who  served  as  President  Bill  Clinton’s  legislative  affairs  director.  “It really  is  a way  of  him maximizing the opportunity to control all aspects of these efforts.”

But  the  national  security model is far from perfect, having produced memorable  conflicts between White House advisers and secretaries of defense and state.

As  national  security  adviser during  President  Bush’s  first  term, Condoleezza  Rice  famously  failed to  resolve  clashes  among  Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, Vice President  Cheney  and  Secretary  of State Colin L. Powell.

Much  depends  on  personalities, said Roy Neel, who was deputy chief of  staff  for  Clinton.  Bush’s  foreign policy arrangement was a “nightmare situation,” he said. Far more successful, Neel said, was Clinton’s creation of  the  National  Economic  Council with Robert E. Rubin stationed in the White House and serving as its chief.

“That organizational change was built  on  the  notion  that  that White House was all about turning the economy around,” Neel said. “Rubin and [Treasury  Secretary] Lloyd Bentsen worked pretty well together.”

But  Obama’s  approach  is  designed to go much further. Browner,  for  example,  in  promoting  Obama’s  “green”  agenda, will attempt to exert authority across half a dozen federal departments and agencies,  including Energy,  Interior, Defense and the Environmental Protection Agency.

In  announcing  her  appointment, Obama  promised  a  new  level  of “coordination  across  the  government,  and my  personal  engagement as president” on energy and climate policy.  He  said  Browner  will  have the  power  to  “demand  integration among  different  agencies;  cooperation between federal, state and  local governments;  and  partnership  with the private sector.”

Daniel J. Weiss, a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress, a liberal think  tank, said, “The energy and global warming problems are so broad, it’s a necessity to have a quarterback.”

Similarly,  Daschle,  with  his White  House  title,  will  have  much broader  authority  than  the  typical health  secretary.  In  coordinating  a new approach to health care, he will touch on programs serving veterans, active military members and federal employees    areas  not  within  the jurisdiction  of  the  Department  of Health and Human Services.

In  addition  to Daschle, Browner and Carrion, Obama  is hiring advisers to coordinate policy in the broad areas of technology, homeland security and government reform.

“It’s  unprecedented  in  the  formality of it,” Mackenzie said.