Shadow Cabinet
A Positive Form of Opposition
Thinking about… I like this by Tim Snyder
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.
Under Musk-Trump, every attempt will be made to make oligarchy, rule by the wealthy few, seem normal. The deeds of billionaires will be justified by the very fact that they are billionaires. Their own rise to the top of American politics will be celebrated as the success of everyone. Musk’s basic idea is that we should all suffer and thank him for our suffering. A shadow cabinet will help here as well. Simply by virtue of not being oligarchic, shadow cabinet members remind us of the variety of Americans and the variety of their perspectives. Their proposals will show that we could act together on behalf of the interests of the people, broadly conceived. Oligarchy is incompatible with democracy, and a shadow cabinet will remind is of the difference.
Trump and Musk admire and emulate foreign dictators and fascists. Under Musk-Trump, we will be told daily that authoritarians are better than elected leaders, and that far-right parties should be in power everywhere. Trump admires Putin and Xi and Kim Jong-Un, but both China and Russia have deep problems, not to speak of North Korea. The far-right leaders Musk supports in around the world have disastrous programs. There is no reason for the United States to be following the lead of foreign failures and foreign fascists. A shadow cabinet will remind us of this. Members of a shadow cabinet, simply by doing their jobs, will help us to see that there is nothing inevitable about government by the very rich and the very wrong.
The essential point is that a far better America is possible: not just better than oligarchy or dictatorship, but better than we can presently imagine. Members of a shadow cabinet would also represent that better America in their own persons. Trump’s actual cabinet, even if some of his nominees are not confirmed, will be corrupt and incompetent on a truly historical scale. He had competent Republicans to choose from, and he neglected them. The Democrats have a huge amount of charismatic talent waiting in the wings. As members of a shadow cabinet, they would have a daily platform to show their stuff. They could also remind us what a cabinet is supposed to be: a form of service to the American people.
Having a shadow cabinet would help to establish a new, and better, rhythm to American politics. The shadow ministers would make politics a daily reality, but in a positive sense. As things stand, we obsess about elections, announce some kind of new era, and then wait to see what happens. This time around, waiting could be fatal. Even in the best of situations, this is not the best way to proceed. A shadow cabinet would change the way that politics in American works and feels. It would generate not just critique and warnings but new ideas and visions. It would mean that each coming election would be about improvement.
A shadow cabinet will also be of huge service to the press, as I noticed back in Britain. When the government does something outrageous, the government always gets to set the tone. It will be hard for journalists to be ready for every shocking moment. Without recourse to readily available political expertise, journalists will be reduced to writing that “critics say” or “critics counter.” But what if “the critics” had names and faces and expertise and ambitions and political responsibility? Members of a shadow cabinet would be there to comment on all the Trump outrages, not just with expressions of outrage or hasty warnings, but with specific knowledge and plausible alternatives.
More than this — the members of the shadow cabinet should assert themselves in the media environment. They should not wait for journalists to ask them; they should set the tone of the debates themselves. They should have a mass format by which they can not only sound the warning bells but get across their own positions and advance their own policies — podcasts, for example. A few of them will likely become very popular — the Democrats have some fantastic communicators, including some (soon-to-be) former members of Biden’s cabinet, members of Congress, and governors. The American Right now dominates the internet, in part because of how social media is organized, in part thanks to the big podcasts, in part thanks to Musk’s explicit bias on Twitter. A shadow cabinet could help re-establish balance here, while offering a different tone: one of creative solutions and citizen solidarity.
To be sure, there are some open questions. If we had such an institution in America, should we call it a “shadow cabinet” or something else? I use the term that is familiar from British (and other parliamentary) usage. Perhaps though it sounds too much like “deep state”? Do you have any better ideas (please leave them in the comment section)? Who should be on the shadow cabinet, and in what capacity? Should there be a shadow president or should that be left aside? In Britain, the leader of the main opposition party would become the prime minister if his or her party wins, but here we do not have a leader of the party in the same sense. So who should decide who is in the shadow cabinet (whatever we decide to call it)?
I raise these questions not because the problems are insuperable — on the contrary, they could be addressed by a serious group of a few Democrats in a few days. Candidates to be chair of the DNC should be talking about how this could be done. I mention the relevant issues because I believe this institution of opposition is something that Americans need and deserve. Only a minority voted for Trump. Harris’s policies, not Trump’s, were more popular. No one voted for Musk, and he is now the leading figure in American politics.
We are facing a moment when much will change for the worse, not just in policy, but in the structure of politics itself. We need to be imagining a better America. Some of this work can be done by individuals with ideas and by activists with organizations. But an essential part of this labor must be done by leading politicians through institutions — old and new, borrowed and improved.
Great Britain, my home for a few years in the early 1990s, has passed through some rough periods since then, especially since the Brexit referendum of 2016, which led to a depressing departure from the European Union. That referendum was an event very much like the first election of Donald Trump: at the same moment, unexpected, internet-driven, supported by Russia. But Britain, of course, always had a shadow cabinet. There was always, at the darkest and dumbest of times, an alternative team. Over there, in the United Kingdom, that alternative team, much of what was once a shadow cabinet, is now in power. That system can work. We should try it.
Ken, Thanks for posting this. I am a fan of Tim Snyder and this is an excellent idea that he puts forward. I’m dubious as to whether the Democratic Party is capable of pulling it off. The details and mechanics of setting it up seem laced with difficult questions that Snyder himself acknowledges; “Who should be on the shadow cabinet, and in what capacity? Should there be a shadow president or should that be left aside? . . .who should decide who is in the shadow cabinet.” Additionally, timing is critical and this concept needs to be implemented very quickly because the chaos of the Trump presidency is about to begin and the midterm elections are less than two years away.
The concept however is critically important in that media and journalists are going to be desperate for credible opposition comment, as well as a some sort of leadership forum for new and alternative ideas that have standing within the Democratic Party. Many issues will be complex and difficult to break down and communicate to the general public.
In some respects it reminds me of FDR’s “Brain Trust,” and therein, could be an alternate name that Snyder is looking for. In lieu of the Democratic Party initiating the idea, there are perhaps a few individuals that could actually provide a similar service. And perhaps there could be more than one. It could actually be a stepping stone to the next Presidential candidate or a platform for former Presidents to play a decisive part in decision making.
I can think of three persons that could actually pull this off right now: Kamala Harris; Barack Obama; or Liz Cheney. The individual approach gets around all the time-consuming, debatable choices that would have to be made if the Democratic Party were to attempt to implement the concept, and makes it obvious, “who should decide who is in the shadow cabinet.” It also provides a place for funders and backers to focus their efforts.
I am currently reading Barack Obama’s book, “A Promised Land.” I’m awed by how he meticulously reviewed the credentials and gave thoughtful consideration to the selection of each of his cabinet members. It is in such stark contrast to the circus surrounding the selection of Trump’s kangaroo cabinet.
To summarize; Democrats need to get busy immediately to begin serious thinking along these lines and implementing a concept like Snyder is suggesting or some other alternative. There is no time to waste. I can also see the Trump lawsuits already about how the concept is interfering with his presidency and the legal arguments over presidential powers v. free speech, etc.
“I can also see the Trump lawsuits already about how the concept is interfering with his presidency and the legal arguments over presidential powers v. free speech, etc.”
Yep. And I can see Musk funding the SLAP lawsuits on Trump’s behalf, not because they can succeed but because they’ll bankrupt the defendants.
I think they can, J.P. Democratic Congressional leaders could assign someone to each of the Republican cabinet, committee chairs, etc. Then, when a Lisa Des Jardin type interviews that cabinet member, chair, etc., demand the same time air time for the shadow. The shadow could then do the journalist’s job by pointing out the lies told, give the facts, and inform the viewer about the issue.
In reading over my comment I’m not sure I made it clear that I meant each of the three individuals I mentioned would appoint their own “shadow cabinet” members. Funding for such an effort should, at least in part, come from the national Democratic Party.