Crony? [Courtesy of Feast of Fools]
So the President picked Harriet Miers. Is it really that much worse than Andrew Jackson’s Kitchen Cabinet, or Warren G. Harding’s Ohio Gang? Or Kennedy’s decision to appoint his little brother Attorney General? Or Clinton’s decision to have his wife head up his first-term healthcare initiative?
It has been clear since the beginning of Bush’s first administration — when he looked Russian President Putin in the eyes and decided to trust him — that the President likes to put people in power whom he knows personally, whom he has decided he can trust. Today’s appointment of Harriet Miers, then, doesn’t seem so shocking, or at least particularly inconsistent for the President. He knows her. He likes her. He’s reached other decisions this way. Why, then, is even the right-wing blogosphere so betrayed this afternoon, writing sentences like this one?
…a profoundly disappointing nomination, a missed opportunity, and an abdication of responsibility to make sound, well qualified nominations…
The Directors, redstate.org
Of all the charges leveled at Bush, “cronyist” — which didn’t even seem in the running after all those years of “idiot” and “war criminal” — is the one that finally took. But every time we’re tempted to pull the trigger on a judgment, we have to ask ourselves: how different is this behavior from that of any other administration? Is it wrong for a man with incomparable power to lean on a few people he knows well and can trust?
Here’s one difference between Miers and the other cronies you list: if confirmed, Miers will be sitting on the Supreme Court long after Bush leaves office. Your other examples, in contrast, were executive branch officials or advisors who would be out of power as soon as their President was. The President is the head of the executive branch, and he can pretty much make it in whatever image he chooses (though, as the recent FEMA debacle has shown, it may not be such a great idea). But when he is called upon to name a member of the highest body of a co-equal branch of government who will serve for life, it does not seem unreasonable to hold him to a higher standard.
Brendan– well, “cronyist” doesn’t have quite a ring at a rally, but it’s sure to find more acceptance than those other terms, which are awfully subjective.
Agreed with David Blue: Supreme Court appointments are quite rare. One might be tempted to call Abe Fortas a “crony” of LBJ (more accurate that LBJ owed his political career to him), but Fortas was accomplished in his own right.
Thanks to TimesSelect, I dug up this Krugman piece from January 2002 regarding Enron, Crony Capitalism, U.S.A.
Cronyism is hardly novel in America; the Clinton administration took us to the edge of a trade war on behalf of Chiquita bananas, a major campaign contributor. But the Bush administration, with its sense of entitlement, seems unconcerned by even the most blatant conflicts of interest — like the plan of Marc Racicot, the new chairman of the Republican National Committee, to continue drawing a seven-figure salary as a lobbyist. (He now says he won’t lobby — but he will still receive that salary.)
Also, I’m not quite sure family members deserve the appellation “crony.”
[Sorry, that fourth paragraph starting "Cronyism" should have been set as a quote of Krugman's I used the QUOTE tag instead of BLOCKQUOTE.]
I see that David Greenberg, addressed Supreme Court Cronyism over at Slate today. His description of Fortas was sublime: “the last justice who can fairly be called a crony—albeit a distinguished crony…” Greenberg suggests that cronyism for the court appeared to be on the wane over the last four decades.
I loved the quote he dug up from Senator Roman Hruska regarding one of Nixon’s less glamorous appointments: “So what if he is mediocre? There are a lot of mediocre judges and people and lawyers. They are entitled to a little representation, aren’t they? We can’t have all Brandeises, Cardozos, and Frankfurters and stuff like that there.”
I have worked for the Fed government in the Dept of Interior through Bush I, Clinton, and Bush II. What is unique to the Bush II administration (at least at Interior) are:
-How far into the Dept and its bureaus the appointments go – that is, where previous administrations skimmed off the top few positions for their own appointees, Bush II reaches many more layers down the chain of command;
-The number of new positions, such as “Special Assistants”, that are appointees and that exercise great influence over policy and decision-making; and
-The percentage of these appointees who are either totally unqualified with no experience of any relevance to the Department or Bureau, or are from an interest group (eg. mining, oil/coal-bed methane extraction, ranching, etc) that is strongly opposed to the mission of the agency.
Is my perception (that all this is worse in Bush II) real or is it a bias on my part? Is it true in other departments and agencies?
Carrie– this is all very interesting; there’s been some mention of it in the press, but I haven’t seen in quantified. This helps a lot. Thanks to Tim Noah at Slate, I learned about the travails of Teresa Chambers, the former chief of the US Park Police who was removed from her job for speaking to the press. It’s tangential to the larger story about cronyism. Incidentally, the Hruska quote made Meet the Press this morning.
This week’s New Republic has rounded up the 15 biggest Bush administration hacks– The Hackocracy.
Cronyism is the most banal of all the isms; it’s been around for quite some time and fails to excite most people. But what’s new about Bush II is that so many of his bad habits are exercised in the open without any apology. There isn’t even an attempt to uphold the ideals that have guided the office and administration. In theory at least, bureaucracy (referring to his appointments outside the White House of course) is supposed to undo the back-scratching that exists within traditional systems of power. It’s supposed to be free from the control of any one person and function according to principles of rationality for the greater good of society. Of course, these are ideals. George II has no need for ideals, because he speaks directly to God and God has the time to answer him. God has no need for a functional bureaucracy.
And another unique feature of Bush II – see the press release from PEER below. Not cronyism exactly, but an interesting illegitimate sister perhaps, and a further indication of how deep into agencies this administration is willing to go. For the non-Fed reader, Most position tinkering in past administrations was limited to the upper levels of the SES – the Senior Executive Service. GS employees are the meat and potatos folks – a GS-13 in the Park Service, for example, is usually a low- to mid-level manager, manages from a few to 20 people discounting seasonal employees, is a career agency worker, and has an entry level salary at that level at around $75,000. If you’re interested in PEER, their web site:
http://www.peer.org/
Their press releases can be a little shrill and self serving, but the nub of the issues they address are usually right on.
PEER Press Release
For Immediate Release: Thursday, October 13, 2005
Political Screening for All Park Service Managers
Mid-Level Managers Picked for Fealty to “the President’s Management Agenda”
Washington, DC – The National Park Service has started using a political loyalty test for picking all its top civil service positions, according to an agency directive released today by Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER). Under the new order, all mid-level managers and above must also be approved by a Bush administration political appointee.
The October 11, 2005 order issued by NPS Director Fran Mainella requires that the selection criteria for all civil service management slots (Government Service grades or GS-13, 14 and 15) include the “ability to lead employees in achieving the …Secretary’s 4Cs and the President’s Management Agenda.” In addition, candidates must be screened by Park Service headquarters and “the Assistant Secretary [of Interior] for Fish, and Wildlife, and Parks,” the number three political appointee in the agency.
The order represents a complete centralization of Park Service promotion and hiring in what has traditionally been a decentralized agency. More strikingly, the order is an unprecedented political intrusion into what are supposed to be non-partisan, merit system personnel decisions.
The President’s Management Agenda includes controversial policies and proposals such as aggressive use of outsourcing to replace civil servants, reliance on “faith-based initiatives” and rollbacks of civil service rights. Interior Secretary Gale Norton’s “4Cs” is a slogan she uses to express her management approach: “4 Cs: communication, consultation, cooperation, all in the service of conservation.”
“It is outrageous that park superintendents must swear political loyalty to the Bush agenda and parrot hokey mottos in order to earn a promotion,”
stated PEER Executive Director Jeff Ruch. “The merit system is supposed to be about ability, not apple polishing.”
The order applies to all hires for park superintendents, assistant superintendents and program managers, such as chief ranger or the head of interpretive or cultural programs. Overall, the policy applies to more than 1,000 mid-level management and supervisory positions in the Park Service.
“Presidents come and go but the civil service is designed to serve whoever occupies the swivel chair in the Oval Office,” Ruch added. “It is downright creepy that now every museum curator, supervising scientist and chief ranger must be okayed by a high-level political appointee.”