- Position‹2 of 2
- One or both Republicans should win
A Biden Presidency could see radical cabinet picks in the coming months. All cabinet picks have to be approved by the Senate, so a Republican controlled Senate would enforce bipartisan and more moderate cabinet selections.
The argument
Presidential appointments have become a contentious issue in the past couple of years. With a Biden Presidency incoming, and new heads of every Department needed. Republicans must keep control of the Senate to ensure conservatism and bipartisanship is a key point of any nominee. The Democrats have long mocked Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos, and a Biden Presidency could see a new and more radical Secretary of Education undo DeVos' work. A new Secretary of State could rejoin the Iran Deal and the Paris Climate Accord, which President Trump pulled out of. A new Secretary of Health and Human Services could encourage a nationwide shutdown due to the ongoing Covid-19 pandemic, devastating the economy. A Biden Presidency with a Democratic Senate could lead to some of the most radical cabinet nominees in recent memory. Georgia needs to elect one or both Republicans in its Senate runoff elections to keep a Biden cabinet from becoming too far left.
Premises
Counter-arguments
Biden's cabinet picks, whoever they may be, should be supported by a Senate no matter what party controls it. Biden is also reportedly considering some Republicans to put in cabinet positions, like former Ohio Governor John Kasich. The country is in dire need of swift aid, and any cabinet picks would be of great help to the country. The Senate, if controlled by Republicans, should not be used to stonewall Biden's cabinet.
Rejecting the premises
[Rejecting P1] The premise assumes that control by the opposing party produces bipartisanship, when it equally produces stalemate, and it never addresses the alternative the counter names — nominating figures from both parties. "Conservative" and "bipartisan" are also treated as one requirement, which they are not. [Rejecting P2] The examples are policy disagreements described as radicalism: rejoining agreements a previous administration had entered is a return to a prior position rather than an extreme one, and the epidemic measure named is attributed to an unnamed nominee with no statement of intent. Confirmation also tests fitness for office rather than agreement with the Senate's policy preferences, which is the standard the premise actually applies.