“The Gatekeepers” by Chris Whipple Crown Publishing Group, 2017
Gatekeepers” is the term we use, particularly in journalism, referring to editors and news directors who decide to open or close the “gates” of their news desks to stories coming their way.
Either the story crashes into print and be one of the news headlines—or consigned to oblivion, the ubiquitous wastebasket in every newsroom.
It’s not only the editor who wields such power, but anyone—a political leader, an academic, or a civil society advocate—who has an agenda, and has the well-developed ability to transform it into a “media agenda,” and finally to make it the “public agenda.”
More important, he could be a confidante in the Palace, who decides whether you can see the President or not, or who screens your appointment papers before they are signed by the State’s Chief Executive.
A newly minted book, “The Gatekeepers,” is just off the press—and brings us to something much bigger than we are talking about.
The sub-title says it all: “How the White House Chiefs of Staff Define Every Presidency.”
It is not only history this book is covering; it’s the current affairs going on in the Trump presidency, which has been hobbled by a lot of “unforced errors” (as in a game of tennis) and weighed down by reckless pronouncements.
The book begins with a list of chiefs of staff gathered at the West Wing of the White House, whose sole purpose is to provide advice to then incoming Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel to incoming President Barack Obama.
Immediately, author Chris Whipple tells us that this is no ordinary gathering.
The chiefs of staff assembled “have defined the Presidency” of the United States spanning more than 50 years.
At the outset, Whipple mentions names of Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, Leon Panetta, Howard Baker, Jack Watson, Ken Duberstein, John Sununu, Sam Skinner, Mark MacLarty, John Podesta, Andrew Card, and Joshua Bolten. All of them had words of advice to incoming Gatekeeper Emanuel.
Nine chapters are devoted to the presidency of Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, George H. W. Bush, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and Barack Obama. You can actually match the Chiefs of Staff with their President.
The story of H. R. Haldeman, chief of staff to Richard Nixon, is a sad and happy story of a highly efficient organization man who was so overprotective of Nixon and thus failed to tell him the whole truth about Watergate—the waterloo (no pun intended) of Nixon who resigned.
The book tells us that this is not as simple as it is. It is also Haldeman who defined an otherwise successful presidency, which opened diplomatic ties with China and who expanded the global reach of American foreign policy.
The political fortunes of Cheney and Rumsfeld were traced to earlier presidents, which culminated in Cheney becoming Vice President to the younger Bush. The book says a lot about the organizational savvy and the iron clad rule of the two—which allowed presidents to survive the rough and tumble dynamics of Washington DC politics.
As chief of staff to Gerald Ford, who ascended to the presidency after Nixon resigned, Cheney would now provide wisdom from hindsight: “Somebody’s got to be in charge. Somebody’s got to be the go-to guy who can go to the Oval Office and deliver a very tough message to the President.”
Leon Panetta, son of an Italian immigrant and chief of staff to Clinton, “stepped in and brought discipline and focus to the White House—enabling Clinton to regain his traction and go on to win a second term.
The White House chief “translates the President’s agenda into reality,” Whipple points out.
“When government works, it is usually because the chief understands the fabric of power, threading the needle where policy and politics converge,” articulates Whipple, who uses metaphors to illuminate the complex dynamics in the White House.
Referring to the highly successful Reagan presidential watch, Whipple has this to say: “Without Jim Baker’s deft touch at managing the White House, the press and Capitol Hill—and the President’s warring advisers—there would have been no Reagan Revolution.”
In an earlier book I reviewed for the Inquirer, Reagan was cited as one of five greatest American Presidents, getting passing marks in Character, Competence and Policy. He joined giants like George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Thomas Jefferson and Franklin Delano Roosevelt.
If Whipple be believed, half of the credit must be given to Reagan’s chiefs of staff.
No less than Obama is quoted in this book citing the extreme value of a good chief: “One of the things I’ve learned is that the big breakthroughs are typically the result of a lot of grunt work—just a whole lot of blocking and tackling.”
So we don’t miss the point, Whipple summarizes it: “Grunt work is what chiefs of staff do”—sounding like a football brawl, a basketball foul play or, simply, menial labor!
Chiefs of staff have developed respect for their bosses. Panetta has this to say about his direct report: “Working with Bill Clinton is a very special experience because you’re dealing with somebody who’s extremely bright, who’s got a mind like a steel trap, gathers all the facts, doesn’t forget a thing.”
And yet the same Panetta experienced having another Boss in the Clinton presidency. He had to report to equally intelligent and demanding First Lady Hillary Clinton.
The book is an interesting read simply because Whipple is a very good writer, picking up interesting and intriguing detail in any Presidential watch. In the closing pages of the book, Whipple has an “epilogue” devoted to the Trump presidency.
Referring to Trump’s stunning election victory over Hillary Clinton, Whipple asks these questions: “Will he run the White House the way he campaigned: Demonizing opponents and making seat-of-the-pants decisions, with no regard for facts or nuance? Or will the burden of the office put a brake on Trump’s worst instincts – and enable him to govern effectively?”
Turning to the current President’s chief of staff, who was replaced by a new one recently, Whipple’s comment is pointed: “The job carries a profound responsibility: He may well represent the thin line between the president and disaster.” —CONTRIBUTED