t this point, we don't know much about who will serve in George W. Bush's administration. Actually, we don't even know for a certainty that there will be a Bush administration. All we know is that if Bush does indeed take office, Colin Powell will be his secretary of state, Condoleezza Rice his national security adviser, and Andrew Card his chief of staff.

Most of the other names that have been floated — e.g., Christine Todd Whitman, Marc Racicot, and Tom Ridge — have been disquieting for conservatives, who fear that these appointments would pull the administration leftward. But they worry even more about the names that have not been circulating.

To be a successful president, Bush will have to dispel the impression that he has no substantive mandate. He will have to rally the public in order to get a closely divided Washington to enact his agenda. And a prerequisite for both these things is subordinates with ideas and an ability to articulate them. Loyalty, decency, and managerial competence are no substitute for these qualities. Accomplished businessmen often go into government eager to shuffle their agencies' organizational charts so that they serve the president more efficiently; they are, invariably, never heard from again, having been swallowed whole by the bureaucracy. Republican presidents have been better served by academics like Henry Kissinger, William Bennett, and William Kristol, who have specific public-policy goals.

It is more important to have agenda-setting Cabinet officers than to have Democratic ones, but hiring a Democrat or two might help Bush advertise his inclusiveness. Bush should probably look for Democrats from outside Washington, who tend to be more cooperative than Beltway veterans. He should make an exception, however, for Democrats whose appointment would create opportunities for Republicans to take more seats in Congress. Louisiana and Connecticut, for example, have Republican governors who would be able to replace any senators tapped by Bush. Why not offer Joe Lieberman the post of education secretary? There's not much daylight between his old positions on education and Bush's platform. Does John Breaux, the Democratic senator from Louisiana, want to be ambassador to France? Bon voyage.

Bush has one substantial advantage over his Republican predecessors. In 1981, there were not enough conservatives to fill the federal bureaucracy even if it had been politically possible to do so. But conservatism has grown sufficiently that Bush could staff his administration with smart, politically savvy officials who believe in the agenda on which he campaigned.

Dan Coats, a former senator from Indiana, appears to have an inside track to be Bush's defense secretary. The defense secretary ought to be someone who can counter Powell's advice, which has not been uniformly good. (Powell didn't want us to go to war in the Gulf, or to fight on to depose Saddam Hussein.) Powell wants Ridge to get the job, and might prevail. But Coats is the better choice, given Ridge's record of voting against Reagan on defense issues. Paul Wolfowitz, an intellectual who worked in the Reagan and Bush administrations, would serve Coats ably as a deputy. John Hillen, an NR contributing editor, was way ahead of the pack in calling attention to our military-readiness problems, and he still understands them better than most experts. He should be undersecretary for readiness and personnel.

Few appointments will matter more to Bush's success than the secretary of health and human services. It is vast, sprawling, the California of Cabinet agencies; it should probably be broken up. No advocate of free-market policies has ever held the position. Bush ought to change that. Social conservatives are pushing for Kay James, a former assistant HHS secretary, who is a reliable and articulate pro-lifer; economic conservatives are pushing for Gail Wilensky, a policy wonk who's advised Bush. They would all be happy with Jim Talent, a congressman from Missouri who knows a lot about HHS issues. Congressman Tom Coburn, an obstetrician, would be an anti-Joycelyn Elders as the surgeon general.

The Office of Management and Budget matters too, as anyone who remembers Richard Darman's role in the Bush administration knows. There appears to be a consensus that the best person for the job is John Cogan of the Hoover Institution. He may not want to leave California. Bush should either persuade him, or hire the astute Chris DeMuth, president of the American Enterprise Institute.

Republicans have a surplus of candidates willing to clean up Janet Reno's mess: Missouri senator John Ashcroft, Oklahoma governor Frank Keating, and former California attorney general Dan Lungren. With so many superb choices, Bush has no excuse not to name an attorney general who would thrill his conservative base. Congressman Jim Rogan would make an excellent deputy AG or FBI chief.

The solicitor general argues for the administration before the Supreme Court. Ted Olson has some recent experience arguing for Bush in front of the court. Charles Cooper is, like Olson, a conservative veteran of the Justice Department, and would also represent Bush well. Brian Jones, a former aide to Orrin Hatch and founder of the Center for New Black Leadership, should head the department's civil-rights division.

If Bush wants someone to help sell his economic plan, it's hard to see who would be better than Steve Forbes. Wayne Angell, a former member of the board of governors of the Federal Reserve, is a well-respected supply-sider. Robert McTeer, president of the Dallas Federal Reserve, combines supply-side convictions with enthusiasm for the New Economy; Treasury might be good preparation for him to succeed Alan Greenspan. Bush has already been well served by Lawrence Lindsey, yet another former Fed governor, who is widely expected to head his National Economic Council.

The choice for education secretary depends on how Bush wants to approach the issue. A Lieberman pick would emphasize his bipartisanship. Colin Powell ought to consider taking the job instead of being secretary of state. He has the moral stature to take on the fearsome education establishment. If Powell means it when he says that Republicans should do more for poor black children, he will never have a better opportunity to prove it. Gene Hickok, Pennsylvania's education chief, has already been fighting for school choice and tougher curricula. Picking him would give Bush a good education secretary — and send a signal to Republican education officials across the country that the way to get ahead in the party is to challenge the status quo, not acquiesce to it.

No department needs tougher oversight than Labor, and nobody's tougher-minded than Linda Chavez. In a previous life, Chavez worked for the American Federation of Teachers. But like Reagan, a union leader himself, Chavez understands that what workers really need is more freedom. And she has an IQ that could boil water.

Steve Goldsmith, the former mayor of Indianapolis, advised Bush on domestic policy during the campaign. He should get the opportunity to put "compassionate conservatism" into practice at the Department of Housing and Urban Development.

Finally, we come to some lesser agencies that probably should not exist but can nevertheless damage an administration if put in the wrong hands. If the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) is to continue, for example, it may as well be run by someone who cares about art. Lynne Munson, who worked for Lynne Cheney at the National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH), has just written a book about the pathologies of the art world. Leon Kass, the bioethicist, would be a good choice for NEH.

Reagan once praised Dan Oliver, his head of the Federal Trade Commission, for being everything he wanted in a regulator — and less. Wendy Lee Gramm would continue that tradition at the FTC. Harold Furchtgott-Roth and Michael Powell are already pro-market voices on the Federal Communications Commission; either could run the agency.

Bush ought to copy Reagan in more than just his regulatory philosophy. Like Bush, Reagan came into office with political elites sniggering about his intellect. Like Bush, he had a management style that emphasized delegation. And like Bush, he had an agenda that was dismissed as too conservative, and an unruly Congress to work with. That's why Bush, like Reagan, needs intelligent, creative, articulate officials working for him.

The Reagan White House, at least in its first years, also had an organizational structure that guaranteed the president would hear a wide range of ideas. Ed Meese served as a counselor without portfolio for Reagan; he was the conservative access point to the administration because he himself had full access to the president. It will not be enough for a presidential aide to be tasked with "conservative outreach" — briefing some conservative activists who are wowed just to have been invited to the White House. Someone has to be at the president's table who will speak for the Heritage Foundation as well as the Business Roundtable, who will represent the political base and try to expand the limits of the possible in Washington. This is one more position that Bush needs to fill, should he actually become president.