|
Edited on Fri Sep-30-05 09:44 AM by Plaid Adder
This morning on the way in I was pondering Michael Brown's performance at the Katrina hearings, and the problem of cronyism. It occurred to me that there are actually two levels to this problem and most of the discussion has so far only been about Level One.
Cronyism--or, as they used to call it, patronage--is not specific to this administration. It has always been a problem, not just in politics but in any profession. Even once you subtract the ways in which people consciously and unconsciously discriminate against outside applicants on the basis of race, gender, sexual orientation, etc., you are left with the basic problem that people would rather hire a known quantity than an unknown one, and that at the same time, they have friends they need to repay. In my own profession, I have been at plenty of hiring meetings where I hear people saying, "Oh yes, he's very good," when what they really mean is "Oh yes, I know him" or "Oh yes, I owe his mentor a big favor." I have done my best to combat this but I'll tell you, it's not easy. The temptation is of course greater when you become the chief executive and you've got appointments to hand out like candy to all your friends.
So, any president is going to do a certain amount of crony-appointing. Clinton appointed his friends to important positions too--at least he tried, until they turned out to have undocumented nannies or something and he had to give up on them. But--and here we get to Level Two of the problem--Clinton had better cronies.
As the president goes, so go the cronies. You can say what you want about Clinton but there are some things you cannot deny: 1) that he is smart; 2) that he worked his ass off while he was in office; 3) that he did at least want to do right by the country, even if his desires for popularity, re-election, and nookie often got in the way. And this is why, when he was looking for someone to whip FEMA into shape, he was able to find someone who was a) smart b) willing to work his ass off and c) animated by a sense of how important his job was to the welfare of those affected by it.
Bush's cronies, on the other hand...well, mainly they tend to be good ol' boys with a lot of money who are professional haters of "big government" (defined, apparently, as "a government that actually functions and is solvent") and for whom the motivation is always going to be power and profit. Bush does not put a particularly high value on smarts, having built his entire persona around his own aw-shucks anti-intellectualism, nor is working hard something he cares about except as an increasingly surreal media mantra. So that's the kind of cronies he's got to shove into positions of power.
And you can see the results.
If Katrina teaches America one thing, I hope it will be that intelligence actually does make a difference. It matters whether the person you elect has the brains to do the job. Not just because he himself has to be able to make decisions without asking Condi's permission and consulting Rove's brain, but because he will be in a better position to find competent people to do the other jobs.
From the way elections are run you'd think we're all living in a different universe, where the president's sole responsibility is to travel the country having a beer with each individual constituent. In fact, 99.98% of this country will never have the opportunity to have a beer with the president, but they will have the opportunity to suffer for his mistakes. Is it too much to hope that next time, people will remember that when the shit comes down, what you really need is not a nice guy who's a lot of fun at parties, but someone who can actually figure out how to save you?
Probably,
The Plaid Adder
|