Obama's 77-Day Sprint

NEW YORK -- Lengthy presidential transitions rank among the oddest of America's political traditions. In the 21st century, they are also among the most dangerous. The fast start that President-elect Barack Obama is engineering for his economic and foreign policy teams must become a model for his successors.

For worse is to come: The dangers posed by this clanking 77-day transfer of executive power will be followed by what Dwight D. Eisenhower called "dead center" -- the first weeks after Inauguration Day, when government's corridors of power are astonishingly empty, with jobs unfilled and new appointees not yet really in charge. Talk about a window of vulnerability.

The Eisenhower assessment -- and sensible prescriptions for stopgap measures to overcome the time-specific vulnerabilities between Election Day and Jan. 20 -- can be found in an engrossing new book, "Difficult Transitions," by Kurt Campbell and James Steinberg, published last month by the Brookings Institution. If you are a history or government junkie, you will want to read it. It is clear to me that Obama and his inner circle have, and with great attention.

When Obama unveiled his national security and foreign policy team last week, he stressed the need for "vigilance" in this transition. That concept lies at the center of the book by Campbell and Steinberg, veterans of the Clinton administration who are involved in the Obama defense and foreign policy transitions.

The authors underscore that modern transitions actually begin in the election campaign and extend several months beyond the inauguration. Presidents-elect set traps for themselves, through campaign rhetoric that boxes them in or in the Cabinets they choose. Most presidents opt for all-stars, campaign loyalists or worthies who have helped their political careers, say Campbell and Steinberg.

Fortunately, his soaring campaign oratory does not seem to bind Obama very much. He quickly put aside the theme of change in favor of governing through continuity and experience so he can "hit the ground running." Given the dangers of weapons of mass destruction, international terrorism and an imploding global economy, it was a prudent choice -- with some pitfalls that need to be managed carefully.

His still-emerging Cabinet is all-star, centrist and internationalist in outlook. Few would challenge the competence of Hillary Clinton to run the State Department or Tim Geithner at Treasury. And by introducing Attorney General-designate Eric Holder as part of a national security team that needs urgent confirmation, Obama should have lessened the chances of a prolonged and nasty confirmation fight over Holder's involvement in Bill Clinton's pardon of fugitive financier Marc Rich.

It was the sort of clever orchestration that Team Obama excelled at during the campaign. The candidate and his advisers early on mastered the art of image-making in the new media environment -- while maintaining tight discipline on inner-circle deliberations and decisions. It is a model better suited to the campaign trail than to the complex and unforgiving choices posed by governance.

That is, Obama should avoid any temptation to construct a Cabinet primarily devoted to managing perceptions while he relies for decisions on the extraordinarily strong corps of White House advisers he is also assembling. The disastrous results of President Bush's effort to centralize and politicize major government decisions at the White House while ignoring or diminishing his own all-star Cabinet should be cautionary tale enough for Obama and his team.

The natural counterweight to an overbearing White House should be a cohesive and effective National Security Council, where Cabinet members engage in real debate and decision making. Here, too, Obama has done well in choosing Jim Jones to be the next national security adviser. Jones is a retired Marine general who has a sure grasp of the political-military dimensions of foreign policy and of energy issues, which he has studied intensely.

Expanding the council to include as permanent members not only the attorney general but also the secretaries of energy and commerce would bring that body into line with 21st-century challenges. The nomination of Bill Richardson, an experienced and deft policymaker, to take over Commerce only underlines that department's growing role in international affairs.

Institutional change -- rather than time-consuming constitutional amendment -- is the quickest way to deal with the growing dangers of drawn-out transitions. Although he has not explicitly repudiated the notion, Obama has effectively bypassed the old transition adage that the country has only one president at a time. He has taken on a presidential voice to speak out decisively about the shape and real goals of his administration. He had little choice, given the threatening agenda he confronts. Institutionalizing his bold approach is an urgent national priority before the next such transfer arrives.

jimhoagland@washpost.com