Next Thing You Know They'll Send Non-Arabic Speaking Texans to Run the Embassy in Riyadh

From the New York Daily News:

The three top jobs at the Federal Emergency Management Agency under President Bush went to political cronies with no apparent experience coping with catastrophes, the Daily News has learned.

Further details here; bascially Numbers Two and Three are both political PR guys. My question is this: Is there some counter-intuitive defense for rewarding political hacks with important government jobs they're unqualified for? Is devising political propaganda the new "thinking outside the bureaucratic box"? Or is this, and all bipartisan patronage like it, precisely as irresponsible as it looks?

Comments

[Akira MacKenzie]

"I'm shocked! Shocked to find that gambling is going on here!"

"Your winnings monsuier."

[saw-whet]

I'd go with "precisely as irresponsible as it looks".

[theCoach]

As precisely as criminally negligent as it looks.

[Dave W.]

When government is going outside its proper roles, as it often does, incompetent hacks and gridlock.

For example, Rumsfeld's incompetence in Iraq is the only reason the US isn't at wwar with Syria right now. The incompetence is good, counterintuitionally.

However, when you are talking about a neccessary and legit gov't function, incompetence is everybody's enemy (but especially the 10,000 drownded ppl).

[Dave W.]

should read "gridlock are friends."

[Aldini]

If you were to construct such a defense, I think you'd have to start by acknowledging that "political hacks" are not without skills; that some of those skills are relevant to managing a large organization; and that said relevance increases in a government or non-private organization (i.e. where the aims of the organization are less clear than "earn profit", and indeed, are occasionally mutually contradictory).

You'd also acknowledge that the most technically proficient person in a given field is not at all the obvious best choice to lead a large organization operating in that field. Is the best aerospace engineer in America the natural choice to head NASA? Certainly not.

Lastly, you would acknowledge that just about everyone with experience in leadership and management is a "hack" to some degree; people with no political instincts do not get promoted in organizations private or public, which suggests that these instincts (skills?) do have some objective value.

That said, in this instance certainly, I think it's just about as irresponsible as it looks.

[Pye N. Ere]

Is there some counter-intuitive defense for rewarding political hacks with important government jobs they're unqualified for?

Before I give an answer, can you define important government jobs?

But really, if I can raise $250k to get President Bush relected during an economic recession, think about what I can do for the country!

[joe]

There is a defense, and it's perfectly straightforward. It isn't counterintuitive at all.

IF the functions of government are unnecessary at best and harmful at worst, and

IF concentration of political power in the hands of your party is God's will, the natural order of things, the only thing standing between us and a mushroom cloud, or otherwise crucial,

THEN conceiving of the government primarily as the stage for ideological struggle, without concern for its effectiveness or sustainability, becomes not only justifiable, but required.

If you're a conservative of a certain stripe, rewarding behavior that advances partisan/ideological interest while crippling a government function is a win/win.

[KipEsquire]

Is there some counter-intuitive defense for rewarding political hacks with important government jobs they're unqualified for?

I guess we don't have enough rinky-dink countries to make these politicals hacks ambassadors to anymore.

Or is buying the position of "Ambassador to Pipsqueakia" too old-school?

[Jason]

Bureaucracies are filled with policy experts who have made a career out of working for government in their area of expertise. These are the people who operate the day to day activities of agencies like FEMA. The head of an agency appointed by the President must necessarily be a "hack" because he/she is the connection through which the President's priorities are put into practice within an agency. Without a "hack" the Prez would have little say in the operation of executive agencies. With around 70% of federal bureaucrats being registered Democrats, the Prez needs somebody he can trust in charge.

[Jason]

Bureaucracies are filled with policy experts who have made a career out of working for government in their area of expertise. These are the people who operate the day to day activities of agencies like FEMA. The head of an agency appointed by the President must necessarily be a "hack" because he/she is the connection through which the President's priorities are put into practice within an agency. Without a "hack" the Prez would have little say in the operation of executive agencies. With around 70% of federal bureaucrats being registered Democrats, the Prez needs somebody he can trust in charge.

[Jason]

Bureaucracies are filled with policy experts who have made a career out of working for government in their area of expertise. These are the people who operate the day to day activities of agencies like FEMA. The head of an agency appointed by the President must necessarily be a "hack" because he/she is the connection through which the President's priorities are put into practice within an agency. Without a "hack" the Prez would have little say in the operation of executive agencies. With around 70% of federal bureaucrats being registered Democrats, the Prez needs somebody he can trust in charge.

[Jason]

Triple posting... D'oh!

[trostky]

Jason,

Horsefeathers. Of course the permanent bureaucrats are hard to make change course. The process is not helped by having political appointees who don't know how to use a steering wheel.

[joe]

Jason, I'm Fisking your post, but it's out of respect:

"Bureaucracies are filled with policy experts who have made a career out of working for government in their area of expertise." Yes.

"These are the people who operate the day to day activities of agencies like FEMA." Well, hopefully, anyways. This isn't always the case.

"The head of an agency appointed by the President must necessarily be a "hack" because he/she is the connection through which the President's priorities are put into practice within an agency." Why "necessarily?" It isn't even conceivable to Jason that the President could work with a connection that is an expert in the mission, rather than part of the election team. Wouldn't you rather have a president who could?

"Without a "hack" the Prez would have little say in the operation of executive agencies." This is nonsense. Somebody who actually knows how to work on the bureaucracy's turf will have a better chance of effecting change.

"With around 70% of federal bureaucrats being registered Democrats, the Prez needs somebody he can trust in charge."

I think when he uses the terms "somebody he can trust in charge," and "have...say in the operation of executive agencies," and "the President's priorities are put into practice within an agency," Jason's making my point about ideological struggle being the foremost priority for the people running the government.

[Linda Williams]

Aldini:

> ... the most technically proficient person
> in a given field is not at all the obvious
> best choice to lead a large organization
> operating in that field. Is the best
> aerospace engineer in America the natural
> choice to head NASA? Certainly not.

Consider the most recent appointee to NASA, Mike Griffin. He is superbly qualified, technically and administratively, to lead NASA. Far more than his immediate predecessors, Sean O'Keefe and Dan Goldin.

Given the mire that NASA has been in during these previous administrations, it does in fact take someone of Griffin's technical caliber to lead the organization back to high ground. His appointment over more politically savvy appointee's is what gives longtime NASA watchers hope for recovery.

When Jim Witt was appointed FEMA's head, he took over an immiserated organization. His technical competence was what restored its reputation. Now with the incompetence of the Allbaugh and Brown administrations on public display, the next administrator will have to be someone of Witt's quality if FEMA is to recover.

Jason:

> Without a "hack" the Prez would have
> little say in the operation of executive
> agencies ... the Prez needs somebody he
> can trust in charge.

This is understandable sentiment if one only operates from political calculus. But for an agency whose mandate is all-hazards recovery, and whose scope of operations is across the dominion of the US, it is simply not acceptable.

Politicizing disaster recovery is eviscerating it. Far better in that case to abolish FEMA, and make it clear to regional, state, and local authorities that they are always on their own.

(One can only imagine how much less useful the National Transportation Safety Board would be in post-air disaster recovery and analysis if it were to become headed in an overtly political manner.)

It should be clear to any right-thinking American that non-partisan leadership is still possible in today's world. If we no longer believe this, we have lost the greater part of our ability to be a unified country.

Regards,
Linda

[an innocent bystander]

Hmmm. Shouldn't your fisking read:

"Bureaucracies are filled with policy experts who have made a career out of working for government in their area of expertise." Well, hopefully, anyways. This isn't always the case.

[Aldini]

Linda, good points, and I'm not arguing with you. It is important that the heads of technical organizations have technical proficiency (and this is why in (say) oil companies, the CEO is generally an engineer who has learned some finance on the job, and not the other way around).

That said, if Mr. Griffin is unable to deal with his political, non-technical masters, he will fail.

[Ed]

Much thanks to Linda's contribution.

The hurricane disaster should be a clear sign that ideology needs to start taking a back seat to execution. If the "CEO" president wants to be viewed with private sector-like competence, then he needs to be more like Jack Welch and

1)cut non-performers, and
2) replace career lobbyists with operational managers.

But the track record proves this won't happen, and for that reason alone he deserves the disdain of those who voted for him on this premise.

How many CEOs in the Fortune 500 come from legal/PR backgrounds? Methinks most RESPECTED corporations have leaders with over 15 years experience in their respective industries.