The People's Cabinet

Naming a Positive Form of Opposition

We need positive forms of opposition. A few days ago I wrote about one: the shadow cabinet. The proposal for a new American version of this venerable institution received overwhelming support.

In a shadow cabinet, in Britain and Canada and elsewhere, parliamentarians from the opposition party follow the actual cabinet members, develop expertise in the relevant portfolios, and comment to the press. They remind the public that other policies and other approaches are possible, and get a chance to show off their skills. (For more on the particular value of such an institution in America right now, see the earlier post.)

I have now read hundreds of comments on that post. Judging by the enthusiasm, I think this proposal should be considered by those who can bring it about.

Readers did note that Americans will need a different name for the institution. "Shadow cabinet" means nothing to most Americans, and the word "shadow" has negative connotations. So what should we call it here?

Readers made quite a few suggestions. "Loyal opposition" came up, but this is not the right term to describe an institution. An alternative cabinet would be an instance of the practice of loyal opposition: in the American setting, the loyalty involved would be to the Constitution. That would distinguish the alternative cabinet from Musk-Trump right from the start.

"Opposition cabinet" would be fine, but the resonance of that name would be negative, whereas members of an alternative cabinet would be performing a very positive service.

Quite a few people liked "people's cabinet." This is nice and short, and it carries with it the suggestion of equality. Trump's cabinet will be full of billionaires. A people’s cabinet would be a reminder that we need not be ruled by corrupt oligarchs.

One could also consider "alternative cabinet," or "alt cabinet" for short. "Democratic cabinet" or "dem cabinet" might also work. I am not insisting; and there are politicians at work with a better ear than mine for these things.

I will though make the poetic point that "shadow cabinet" has only five syllables, which is one reason why it has worked well in (non-American) English parlance for decades. Anything longer than five syllables will sink.

“People’s cabinet” sounds right.

Many of the comments were along the lines of "yes, let's do this and some other thing where great Americans monitor the government." Certainly one can imagine a number of forms of oversight. Journalists could form a team and agree to follow cabinet members. One can even imagine scholars doing something of the sort.

Opposition and resistance will take many forms. But a people’s cabinet would be a specific form of activity for politicians. It should be composed of present and past elected officials, and perhaps also past holders of high offices. Unlike journalists or academics or activists or others, such people bear not just ethical but political responsibility. They might have a political future in a restored American democracy. That is the point.

How might the Democratic Party arrange something like this? Unlike parties in parliamentary systems, the Democratic Party has no clear hierarchy, no leader who automatically heads the next government. There is no tradition of an alternative cabinet in the United States. But that does not mean that generating one is impossible! After all, a member of the House of Representatives has already suggested doing this.

The chairmanship of the Democratic National Committee is open. Candidates could make a people’s cabinet part of their platform and explain how they would form it. This would be an obvious first step.

Or the chairs of the relevant House and Senate committees and subcommittees could serve in parallel as the people’s cabinet. Or one important congressional committee, such as Judiciary, could assign all of its members to serve as an alternative cabinet. Or one respected person of authority could be given the authority by some group of Democrats to form the people’s cabinet. Or a caucus within the Democratic Party, impatient with the older generation, could take this up. Or a set of Democratic governors could get together...

The essential point is to figure this out and get started!

These first six months of the Mump regime will be axial. Musk-Trump will have problems. Incompetence will tell. The mumpers who want fascism in order to get to oligarchy will clash with the mumpers who want oligarchy in order to get to fascism. Those who understand that they should just take credit for the Biden economy will clash with those who want tariffs and deportations. The mump crew will not do some of the things they promised, which is bad for them. They will do some of the things they promised, which is bad for the rest of us. But the things they mean to do are generally difficult, usually unpopular, sometimes in tension with one another, and often much worse in reality than they sound in campaign speeches.

There will be huge openings for those who want to defend the Constitution and propose alternatives. But we will need new ideas, new voices, and new forms of action: such as a people’s cabinet.