There seems to be a familiar pattern with the Brown resignation.

[elperromagico]

A member of the Administration screws up.

Bush expresses total confidence in that person.

That person is fired, resigns, or is consigned to the background.

This is the Republican style of executive governance to the nth degree. The employees come up with solutions and all the boss has to do is choose between those carefully filtered solutions.

It's a style of executive management which can be very efficient and effective in business. In the Bush Administration, however, it has often proven to be embarrassing, particularly when the executive seems to have no clue as to what is going on around him. More often than not, it makes Bush look like a man at disconnect with reality.

The "business style" of Republican governance is nothing new. Reagan did it. Even Nixon, who played a more active role in decision making, had retainers in the form of Haldeman and Erlichman.

Democratic executives, as we know from the Clinton years, don't operate like that. The Democratic style of governance is less efficient on its face but the executive is usually acutely aware of decisions. If one were to ask Clinton why he made some decision during his term, he could probably give you a very detailed explanation of the factors that went into that decision. In the end, he'd probably even convince you that he made the right decision.

Bush has demonstrated time and time again that he lacks that ability. He couldn't convince you that his decision was the right one but those who already agreed with him would be cheering like hell.

Put simply, a Republican executive wants two alternatives on his desk by Friday morning; a Democratic executive wants you to come to the office Thursday night and talk about the issue over pizza. Both executives will probably have a solution come Friday night; only one knows what that decision means.