So just how influential IS Arthur Weasley?

[Mike Schubert]

No: HPFGUIDX 10415

I mean, my first 4 or 5 times through the books, I had just gone on 
the assumption that he was just a fairly average bureaucrat, one of 
hundreds (thousands?) like him in the Ministry. But now, with each 
reread of the series, it strikes me that he's no low-level 
functionary. I mean, he's the head of a department, and really all we 
know about it is that it's the "most boring department", according to 
Ron. (There's also the time that Mr. Weasley mentions how it's just 
him and one other wizard [I'm thinking Mundungus Fletcher, but that 
seems wrong to me. Was he the one that hexed Arthur?], but I got the 
impression, for some reason, that the department is bigger now than it 
was when Arthur first made that comment.) Consider the fact that he 
got 9 or 10 seats (we don't really see any mention of Ginny in that 
scene, do we? Or Charlie, Bill, Fred, George, or Percy, for that 
matter. But we know that Arthur, Harry, Ron, and Hermione were there.) 
in a box that held "about twenty purple-and-gilt chairs...in two 
rows". Now I suppose, in a stretch, this could be interpreted as about 
40 seats, and not as about 20. And I would tend to think that 40 is 
closer to the actual number due to the fact that "Mr. Weasley KEPT 
shaking hands with people who were obviously very important wizards", 
and "Percy jumped to his feet so often he looked as though he were 
[that sounds weird to me... is that correct grammar in British 
English, or was that a mistake? Or, for that matter, is correct 
grammar in American English, and I've just been misspeaking all these 
years?] trying to sit on a hedgehog."  So even assuming this box could 
fit a HUNDRED people, 10 seats is pretty darn impressive, being owed a 
favor from Ludo Bagman or not. Anyway, my point is this. What do you 
think he would be equated to in, say, U.S. politics? A major cabinet 
member? The head of a more minor Dept.? Just an interesting question.
-Mike Schubert