"the toughest part of this job will probably be sitting behind a desk.”
November 15, 2013 6:14 PM Subscribe
Sizing Up Sally Jewell "
The new Interior Secretary has an impressive résumé. Oil geologist, banker, president of REI. But today's Washington is a landscape without maps, and in this age of climate change and keystone, the major battles are taking place over at the EPA and State. Is greatness still possible at Interior?"
@SecretaryJewell
@SecretaryJewell
Having worked at REI HQ under Sally, I'd say yes, she'll do just fine. Great as a matter of fact.
I'm on my phone, doing a million things, so I don't have cycles to go into it, but in my very personal experiences under her, she is a kind, wonderful and powerful person, the kind of person who knows how to ask for what she wants in a way that doesn't make a person feel like a shill or a heel for doing it. I don't know if that will work for or against her, but she is a genuine person who can make big things happen. I believe in her, FWIW.
posted by Annika Cicada at 7:05 PM on November 15, 2013 [11 favorites]
I'm on my phone, doing a million things, so I don't have cycles to go into it, but in my very personal experiences under her, she is a kind, wonderful and powerful person, the kind of person who knows how to ask for what she wants in a way that doesn't make a person feel like a shill or a heel for doing it. I don't know if that will work for or against her, but she is a genuine person who can make big things happen. I believe in her, FWIW.
posted by Annika Cicada at 7:05 PM on November 15, 2013 [11 favorites]
In the book "Parkinson's Law", one of the chapters is about cabinets and their life cycles. He shows how cabinets keep growing, and once they reach a certain point a new inner cabinet is formed which has the real power, while the former outer cabinet starts being ceremonial. His example from history is England/Britain, where this process happened fully six times over the centuries.
The dividing line seems to be about 12 members. Once it exceeds that, relevance drops. And you can tell that a cabinet no longer matters when seats are added to it for symbolic reasons, to impress citizens. On that basis, the US cabinet ceased to matter about 1976. The way you could tell was that the head of the VA, and the ambassador to the UN, were added to the cabinet. Also when Education was split out of HEW and made a separate cabinet position, as an empty gesture to show how important Education was.
Just as Parkinson predicted, an inner chamber was formed which now wields that power. It's the National Security Council. The Secretary of State, the Secretary of Defense, and the Attorney General are part of it. But most of the cabinet secretaries only attend meetings when they're invited. It was formed in 1947, but really became central during Reagan's presidency.
As to the formal cabinet itself, it only meets rarely and nothing important happens when it does.
posted by Chocolate Pickle at 7:30 PM on November 15, 2013 [10 favorites]
The dividing line seems to be about 12 members. Once it exceeds that, relevance drops. And you can tell that a cabinet no longer matters when seats are added to it for symbolic reasons, to impress citizens. On that basis, the US cabinet ceased to matter about 1976. The way you could tell was that the head of the VA, and the ambassador to the UN, were added to the cabinet. Also when Education was split out of HEW and made a separate cabinet position, as an empty gesture to show how important Education was.
Just as Parkinson predicted, an inner chamber was formed which now wields that power. It's the National Security Council. The Secretary of State, the Secretary of Defense, and the Attorney General are part of it. But most of the cabinet secretaries only attend meetings when they're invited. It was formed in 1947, but really became central during Reagan's presidency.
As to the formal cabinet itself, it only meets rarely and nothing important happens when it does.
posted by Chocolate Pickle at 7:30 PM on November 15, 2013 [10 favorites]
When the average voter considers the job of the gate keeper of public land and offshore rights, they should become capitalistic if they want to get serious about it, because only national parks and monuments have the benefit of the supply-side preservation argument. For the rest, it's not a matter of "protecting" anything from corporations, because they'll just spend their money buying the politician instead of the resource, and get it for nearly free like they do with oil and gas, maybe even a subsidy thrown in. Voters must find out what their holdings are worth in the long run, charge not a penny less, and then watch the real conservation begin.
posted by Brian B. at 7:31 PM on November 15, 2013 [1 favorite]
posted by Brian B. at 7:31 PM on November 15, 2013 [1 favorite]
My preferred pull quote:
She’s climbed Antarctica’s Vinson Massif
This is a very unusual person.
posted by bukvich at 8:45 PM on November 15, 2013 [1 favorite]
She’s climbed Antarctica’s Vinson Massif
This is a very unusual person.
posted by bukvich at 8:45 PM on November 15, 2013 [1 favorite]
He shows how cabinets keep growing, and once they reach a certain point a new inner cabinet is formed which has the real power, while the former outer cabinet starts being ceremonial.
There was an article a couple of days ago in Politico which I thought was outstanding (I almost made a post about it) about the increasing irrelevancy of the cabinet in the Obama administration, continuing a long bipartisan trend. I suspect when Jewell (who seems like a very interesting person) leaves, her frustrations might mirror those of the also-highly-talented Steven Chu in energy.
posted by dsfan at 5:20 AM on November 16, 2013 [1 favorite]
There was an article a couple of days ago in Politico which I thought was outstanding (I almost made a post about it) about the increasing irrelevancy of the cabinet in the Obama administration, continuing a long bipartisan trend. I suspect when Jewell (who seems like a very interesting person) leaves, her frustrations might mirror those of the also-highly-talented Steven Chu in energy.
posted by dsfan at 5:20 AM on November 16, 2013 [1 favorite]
Annika Cicada: Having worked at REI HQ under Sally, I'd say yes, she'll do just fine. Great as a matter of fact.
Annika, your endorsement makes me want to like her, but that's somewhat irrelevant to the greater question of: Will she wield power?
When someone is at the top of their department, they are only 50% leader or manager; they are equally in the lowest-rank of the next group up. Washington doesn't respect "nice". It respects "DC power": contacts, connections, and the ability to capture the attention of the voters.
posted by IAmBroom at 4:31 PM on November 16, 2013
Annika, your endorsement makes me want to like her, but that's somewhat irrelevant to the greater question of: Will she wield power?
When someone is at the top of their department, they are only 50% leader or manager; they are equally in the lowest-rank of the next group up. Washington doesn't respect "nice". It respects "DC power": contacts, connections, and the ability to capture the attention of the voters.
posted by IAmBroom at 4:31 PM on November 16, 2013
That said, hasn't Interior been ruined as a policy player ever since James Watt fucked the whole place up and took a dump on the welcome mat?
I don't know, I think Bruce Babbit got a lot done under Clinton: he was the chief architect of the roadless rule, which protects a huge amount of old-growth forest in the U.S. National Forest System. He was also, I believe, a key player in the Northwest Forest Plan, which was Clinton's solution to the spotted owl wars. He also sheparded a large package of national monument protections.
When the average voter considers the job of the gate keeper of public land and offshore rights, they should become capitalistic if they want to get serious about it, because only national parks and monuments have the benefit of the supply-side preservation argument. For the rest, it's not a matter of "protecting" anything from corporations, because they'll just spend their money buying the politician instead of the resource, and get it for nearly free like they do with oil and gas, maybe even a subsidy thrown in.
I honestly have no idea what you mean by this. For one thing, there are actually vast millions of acres of non-National Park or -Monument public lands that have wilderness value. For instance, most of the National Forest system, federally-designated Wilderness Areas, and all Wildlife Refuges.
Secondly, it's actually really hard for members of Congress to get public lands opened up for drilling - these decisions actually are made mostly at the administrative level. This is because these lands usually do have some sort of value as wilderness (not to mention economic value as recreational areas) and thus opening them up for drilling or fracking is going to be highly controversial in their districts. And if the senator/representative from that area is not going to argue for it, then it's not going to happen in Congress.
Even when a Congressional delegation is in support of development, like in the case of the Arctic areas of Alaska, it's still really hard to get these things through in Congress. For instance, how long have Congressional Republicans (and some Democrats) been trying to open up various federal lands in the Alaskan Arctic for oil drilling? Decades, and they have not been able to.
What Congress can do is pass laws that lower the bar for development projects to pass - but I can't see how anything like that would pass in 2013's Congress. And even if it were, DoI would still be in charge of implementing, and still has control over most of the permitting processes.
posted by lunasol at 6:01 PM on November 16, 2013
I don't know, I think Bruce Babbit got a lot done under Clinton: he was the chief architect of the roadless rule, which protects a huge amount of old-growth forest in the U.S. National Forest System. He was also, I believe, a key player in the Northwest Forest Plan, which was Clinton's solution to the spotted owl wars. He also sheparded a large package of national monument protections.
When the average voter considers the job of the gate keeper of public land and offshore rights, they should become capitalistic if they want to get serious about it, because only national parks and monuments have the benefit of the supply-side preservation argument. For the rest, it's not a matter of "protecting" anything from corporations, because they'll just spend their money buying the politician instead of the resource, and get it for nearly free like they do with oil and gas, maybe even a subsidy thrown in.
I honestly have no idea what you mean by this. For one thing, there are actually vast millions of acres of non-National Park or -Monument public lands that have wilderness value. For instance, most of the National Forest system, federally-designated Wilderness Areas, and all Wildlife Refuges.
Secondly, it's actually really hard for members of Congress to get public lands opened up for drilling - these decisions actually are made mostly at the administrative level. This is because these lands usually do have some sort of value as wilderness (not to mention economic value as recreational areas) and thus opening them up for drilling or fracking is going to be highly controversial in their districts. And if the senator/representative from that area is not going to argue for it, then it's not going to happen in Congress.
Even when a Congressional delegation is in support of development, like in the case of the Arctic areas of Alaska, it's still really hard to get these things through in Congress. For instance, how long have Congressional Republicans (and some Democrats) been trying to open up various federal lands in the Alaskan Arctic for oil drilling? Decades, and they have not been able to.
What Congress can do is pass laws that lower the bar for development projects to pass - but I can't see how anything like that would pass in 2013's Congress. And even if it were, DoI would still be in charge of implementing, and still has control over most of the permitting processes.
posted by lunasol at 6:01 PM on November 16, 2013
Secondly, it's actually really hard for members of Congress to get public lands opened up for drilling - these decisions actually are made mostly at the administrative level.
Not very difficult actually, especially in the right political climate, and it rarely involves local representatives.
Even when a Congressional delegation is in support of development, like in the case of the Arctic areas of Alaska, it's still really hard to get these things through in Congress. For instance, how long have Congressional Republicans (and some Democrats) been trying to open up various federal lands in the Alaskan Arctic for oil drilling? Decades, and they have not been able to.
Not sure where you mean, but those are probably wilderness areas, perhaps this one, which are far more difficult, but still available. Designating wilderness is a drawn out political debate pitted against industry profits, and it will not prevent anyone from surveying it for its mineral value regardless. Offshore drilling is probably in a worse state, depending on national need, and the price of product going into voters cars (used to sentimentalize the corporate interest). My point was to capture far more than 12.5% of self-reported royalties on minerals (of which the transportation costs of the mineral are often deducted from, and then under-reported at sale, and then often paid in-kind, or originally negotiated with price thresholds). This slows down everything and provides more reserves for the future. It beats exploiting a single rare species to drum up sentiment against local capitalism (ie, supply-side environmentalism), when the public, ironically, owns the land in question and should adjust values based on all interests.
posted by Brian B. at 9:20 AM on November 17, 2013
Not very difficult actually, especially in the right political climate, and it rarely involves local representatives.
Even when a Congressional delegation is in support of development, like in the case of the Arctic areas of Alaska, it's still really hard to get these things through in Congress. For instance, how long have Congressional Republicans (and some Democrats) been trying to open up various federal lands in the Alaskan Arctic for oil drilling? Decades, and they have not been able to.
Not sure where you mean, but those are probably wilderness areas, perhaps this one, which are far more difficult, but still available. Designating wilderness is a drawn out political debate pitted against industry profits, and it will not prevent anyone from surveying it for its mineral value regardless. Offshore drilling is probably in a worse state, depending on national need, and the price of product going into voters cars (used to sentimentalize the corporate interest). My point was to capture far more than 12.5% of self-reported royalties on minerals (of which the transportation costs of the mineral are often deducted from, and then under-reported at sale, and then often paid in-kind, or originally negotiated with price thresholds). This slows down everything and provides more reserves for the future. It beats exploiting a single rare species to drum up sentiment against local capitalism (ie, supply-side environmentalism), when the public, ironically, owns the land in question and should adjust values based on all interests.
posted by Brian B. at 9:20 AM on November 17, 2013
Not very difficult actually, especially in the right political climate, and it rarely involves local representatives.
Unless I'm missing something, your link actually supports my point - the leasing referred to there is done by agencies (the BLM, which is part of DoI), not Congress. Again, it's very difficult for lands to be approved for leasing by act of Congress.
Not sure where you mean, but those are probably wilderness areas, perhaps this one, which are far more difficult, but still available.
What I mean is that there has never been significant oil drilling on federal public lands (or waters) in the Alaskan Arctic. Wilderness Areas or otherwise. Lands owned by the state of Alaska and/or native corporations are another issue.
posted by lunasol at 12:19 AM on November 18, 2013
Unless I'm missing something, your link actually supports my point - the leasing referred to there is done by agencies (the BLM, which is part of DoI), not Congress. Again, it's very difficult for lands to be approved for leasing by act of Congress.
Not sure where you mean, but those are probably wilderness areas, perhaps this one, which are far more difficult, but still available.
What I mean is that there has never been significant oil drilling on federal public lands (or waters) in the Alaskan Arctic. Wilderness Areas or otherwise. Lands owned by the state of Alaska and/or native corporations are another issue.
posted by lunasol at 12:19 AM on November 18, 2013
Again, it's very difficult for lands to be approved for leasing by act of Congress.
The senior level are political appointments. Outside of district congress members and lobbies put pressure on the President for these appointments in exchange for all kinds of support. Most public lands are in the lower 48.
posted by Brian B. at 7:24 AM on November 18, 2013
The senior level are political appointments. Outside of district congress members and lobbies put pressure on the President for these appointments in exchange for all kinds of support. Most public lands are in the lower 48.
posted by Brian B. at 7:24 AM on November 18, 2013
The senior level are political appointments.
Yes, like Sally Jewell.
I think we may be mostly in agreement but talking past each other? The question was whether or not Sally Jewell can have an impact and my point was that the agencies have a lot more control over public lands and how they're used than members of Congress, whose input is secondary at best.
posted by lunasol at 11:13 AM on November 18, 2013
Yes, like Sally Jewell.
I think we may be mostly in agreement but talking past each other? The question was whether or not Sally Jewell can have an impact and my point was that the agencies have a lot more control over public lands and how they're used than members of Congress, whose input is secondary at best.
posted by lunasol at 11:13 AM on November 18, 2013
Look at the charter of REI, Sally Jewell espouses that philosophy. She will manage it to the best of her abilities, which includes managing diverse interests and crafting a solution that meets the most important requirements of all sides.
At the negotiating table everyone will give some skin to the game, that's where Sally Jewell makes her mark. You will give your efforts over to the larger good without feeling cheated. She's a great negotiator, which is something DC lacks these days.
posted by Annika Cicada at 10:26 PM on November 18, 2013
At the negotiating table everyone will give some skin to the game, that's where Sally Jewell makes her mark. You will give your efforts over to the larger good without feeling cheated. She's a great negotiator, which is something DC lacks these days.
posted by Annika Cicada at 10:26 PM on November 18, 2013
« Older "For heaven’s sake don’t let them tame you into an... | "Here, have some ribbon candy. Boys love candy." Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
This seems a little silly, DC is as entrenched by the status quo as ever, it's its raison d'etre. That said, hasn't Interior been ruined as a policy player ever since James Watt fucked the whole place up and took a dump on the welcome mat?
posted by rhizome at 6:33 PM on November 15, 2013 [1 favorite]