Assessing the So-Called “Shadow Cabinet” Concept

As Democrats struggle to come up with a coherent and effective strategy which might halt the U.S. descent into wholesale fascism, the idea of forming a so-called “shadow cabinet” has picked up some traction.  In other parliamentary democracies, particularly in Europe, opposition parties set up rival cabinets and are assigned specific tasks, thus mimicking portfolios of the ruling government.  So-called “shadow ministers” offer their own critiques of current policies while suggesting constructive alternatives.

In the United Kingdom, shadow cabinets receive money to pursue research and develop policy while holding the government to account.  Shadow members, meanwhile, “do battle” in Parliament and on TV networks.  At its best, notes the BBC, “the system can be a powerful protection against badly thought-out policy, lies and spin.  At its worst, it can lead to ‘opposition for opposition’s sake’ – a sterile rebuttal-by-rote of whatever the government minister says.”  The notion of forming a shadow cabinet has been pushed in liberal quarters, from MSNBC to Yale professor and historian Tim Snyder to progressive Washington publications.

Such folk envision the likes of a shadow Secretary of Interior, for example, who could speak about the need to conserve forests and protect cherished parklands; a shadow Treasury Secretary pointing out how the Trump administration favors billionaires; a shadow Labor Secretary denouncing White House attacks on workers protections; a shadow Transportation Secretary who spells out how Elon Musk benefits from privatization of air traffic control, and a shadow Health and Human Services Secretary seeking to defend public health from R.F.K. Jr.’s ill-informed decisions.

From a technical standpoint, proposals about how to set up a shadow cabinet may vary.  Some have suggested congressional leaders should name or appoint Democratic members.  Others, meanwhile, have proposed that Democratic leaders in the House and Senate might consult with the Democratic Governors Association.  Yet others, fed up with the Democratic establishment altogether, have proposed a more grassroots process linked to a caucus system which “would provide valuable practice in democratic deliberation about real issues that are affecting…local communities throughout the country.”

Sounding bullish, Michael Tomasky of New Republic remarks, “If they did it right… [forming a shadow cabinet] would be a really dramatic step.  It would signal to their base that Democrats get the gravity of this moment—which is all the more important after the recent Schumer debacle—and they’re trying to respond with something big.  Donald Trump is doing a lot of things that have never been done.  Democrats should answer him by doing the same.  At this moment in our nation’s history, the richer political payoffs come from being unconventional.”

Tomasky, however, erroneously claims the idea of a shadow cabinet is somehow novel.  “It has no precedent in American politics,” he writes, “at least that I know of” (my italics added).  In fact, former politicians, scholars and heads of business did attempt to form a shadow cabinet during the first Trump administration.  Mark Green, a former New York City Public Advocate, tapped figures like Harvard Law School professor Laurence Tribe to serve as shadow Attorney General, and Robert Reich to serve as shadow Secretary of Labor (Reich previously served in an official capacity as Bill Clinton’s Secretary of Labor).  Reporting at the time, the BBC remarked that Green’s effort “is unlikely to have anything like the kind of profile or political clout of a British shadow cabinet.  It has 15 members and relies on donations to support its efforts.  It will have no role in Congress and no formal links to the Democratic Party, relying instead on social media to get its message across.”

Given that Green’s previous attempt to form a shadow cabinet failed to catch on or gain public visibility, is it worth revisiting symbolic or token-style actions?  Moreover, within the current lawless milieu, setting up a shadow cabinet without any intrinsic power doesn’t seem to really meet the moment.  Furthermore, even if Democrats sought to set up a shadow cabinet, the party has already jeopardized its moral voice by failing to stand up for legality.

Indeed, from the very outset, Democratic leaders refused to uphold their constitutional duty by enforcing Section 3 of the 14^th amendment, which bars insurrectionists from holding public office.  During certification of the 2024 election, not one member of the Democratic Party objected, despite overwhelming and incontrovertible evidence that Trump is indeed an insurrectionist.

Perhaps history can be instructive by providing examples of anti-fascist resistance.  During World War II, émigré forces fled their host countries and set up actual governments-in-exile.  Like the Democrats, the German Social Democratic Party (SPD) lost credibility during the Weimar period when top officials failed to stand up to fascism.  After Hitler came to power, most SPD leadership settled in Prague, and an exile organization called Sopade was created.

After the Nazis annexed Czechoslovakia in 1938, Sopade moved to Paris, and after the defeat of France in 1940, the group resettled in London where it joined other German socialist organizations to fight against the Hitler regime.  During the war, Sopade collected information on public opinion under the Nazis and published a series of reports through a secret correspondence system.  Sopade also helped fellow party members escape from perilous conditions in continental Europe and travel to Britain.

Despite these successes, internal conflicts emerged, with different factions publishing separate newspapers.  Unlike Free French forces under de Gaulle, German exiles lacked a charismatic leader.  Additionally, though the British Labour party had initially welcomed German social democrats, and exile leaders were given moral and financial support, by 1942 relations had begun to fray.  Indeed, Labour began to adopt a hostile attitude towards the newcomers, while the Foreign Office refused to collaborate altogether.  Conservatives, meanwhile, resisted German exiles’ engagement with the BBC, which was regarded as a hotbed of socialistic programming.

Ultimately, exile attempts to organize indigenous resistance within Germany proved fruitless.  It would be a stretch to argue that secret efforts to organize anti-Nazi revolution from abroad were worth the cost, with many brave men and women losing their lives.  Correspondence sent into Germany fell into the clutches of the Gestapo or wound up in the hands of anti-Nazis who wielded little influence.  When referring to this period, some scholars are blunt, remarking that “émigrés were considered helpless flotsam…at best they were met with pity, at worst with hatred and contempt.”  Hopelessly divided, exiles engaged in petty doctrinal differences and vendettas.  Fundamentally, democratic socialism was discredited in Germany, “an unpalatable truth” which exiles chose to ignore.

What is the most effective means of resisting fascism?  In the coming weeks and months, the anti-Trump political resistance will, no doubt, delve into many of these questions and debates.  As for previous anti-fascist struggles, history has demonstrated that exiles seeking to return to power are helpless without significant support both abroad and within their countries of origin.  Even if they manage to achieve a degree of political support, it is unlikely émigrés will succeed in toppling dictatorship, unless there is a major war or military defeat.  It’s a sobering reminder of just how risky it can be to challenge authoritarian governments which operate outside the normal scope of moral and legal boundaries.