An executive cabinet

Abstract

i n British terms, the definition of cabinet function is simple: it is the government. A decision-making body in which binding votes are taken, the British cabinet collectively embodies the political will of Britain's parliamentary system. It acts, subject to parliamentary votes of confidence, as the final repository of executive authority. The U.S. cabinet possesses no such authority. Executive responsibility in the American system rests exclusively with the president. The cabinet has no formal authority: it does not collectively make decisions, nor does it normally advise on questions of importance. While there exists language establishing "Executive Departments and Heads of Departments" whose "opinion in writing" would be an important source of advice to the president, the cabinet as such has no constitutional mandate. Its institutional legitimacy derives solely from custom and function. It was George Washington who, acting upon what he saw as "the impossibility that one man should be able to perform all the great business of state," began calling his executive secretaries and the attorney general into collective collaboration on a regular basis. To him it was clear that the chief executive alone could neither dig deeply enough into the vast range of presidential problems to be assured that all the dimensions of any given issue were covered, nor see to it that his decisions and overall priorities were faithfully carried out at all levels of government. Only by giving responsibility to specialists whose expertise and administrative authority spread over the entire range of issues and having them meet regularly could he begin to overcome this institutional predicament. In order for the administration of government to reflect coherent goals and strategies, therefore, a number of serious people had to be involved in the policy formation process. For Washington, it was the heads of the executive departments who collectively best met these requirements. Copied by his successors, Washington's organizational initiative (dubbed "the Cabinet" by James Madison) was quickly accepted as a permanent feature of the executive office. This institutionalization was a clear signal that the cabinet was indeed serving an important function in the presidential decision-making and coordination process, giving the president both a relatively complete display of the issues before him and an opportunity to extend his control throughout the executive bureaucracy. Its exact status, however, continued to change as presidents sought to establish clearer lines of authority within their administrations. By the mid-nineteenth century a new, more permanent relationship between the president and his cabinet had emerged--a relationship epitomized by President Lincoln's often-repeated quip: "Seven noes, one aye: ]'he ayes have it." According to Richard Fenno in The President's Cabinet, the cabinet had come to live "in a state of institutional dependency to promote the effective exercise of the president's authority and to help implement his ultimate responsibilities.'" Today the cabinet's mandate seems more compelling than ever. The extraordinary complexity and range of issues on the presidential agenda has compounded the chief executive's inherent organizational difficulties, limiting still further his ability to carry out his central decision-making and coordination responsibilities. Much more than in Washington's day, the contemporary president is forced to rely upon others to both advise him and carry out his policies. Who should these "others" be'? With close ties to interest groups, Congress, and their own bureaucracies, the men and women who head the departments of the executive branch still collectively appear the best suited to fulfill these functions. It is therefore not surprising that each newly elected president is attracted to the traditional cabinet idea. When faced with the necessity of organizing his office for central decision-making and coordination, it seems an entirely logical approach; the cabinet should make a major contribution to the effectiveness of any administration. But can it? Is the cabinet in its present form well suited to these tasks? Can it, as a collegial body, be a successful part of