Today’s syndicated column (written while cruising) addresses the current hullabaloo about how George Bush is a fool, a traitor or tyrant for not appointing more “dissenters” to his second term cabinet. I certainly agree that getting honest advice and opposing points of view is worthwhile. But this whole mini-scandal strikes me as complete bad faith. If Bush needs more dissenters, why isn’t anyone clamoring for cabinet secretaries who are more hawkish, not less? More free market, not less? The answer is that the New York Times and New Republic don’t think Bush should hire more dissenters, he should hire more people who agree with the New York Times and the New Republic.

By the way, where was the clamor for more dissenters in the Clinton administration? I don’t recall it. I do recall that when Donna Shalala timidly mentioned that she was troubled by Clinton’s behavior with Monica Lewinsky, she was browbeaten by Clinton. I do recall Clinton bullying Abigail Thernstrom, too. I do remember that Bill Clinton refused to meet with the head of the CIA because Jim Woolsey “dissented.” If you read Rich Lowry’s book, you’ll know that Clinton basically avoided working with the FBI because he couldn’t stand Louis Freeh. Yes, this was the more mature and sensible way of dealing with subordinates.