There are many disturbing aspects to the Bush Administration that historians will examine and perhaps, if they are charitable, chalk up to an overreaction to the 9/11 attacks or perhaps a zealotry for securing the United States from another, bigger catastrophe.
But there is one facet of the Bush Presidency that historians will universally and roundly condemn; the politicization of governance that, top to bottom, has interfered with many of the vital functions we expect the government to carry out. From the office of the Attorney General, to the Environmental Protection Agency, to NASA, to the National Park Service and more, politics has intruded into what traditionally has been non-political or apolitical functions of government. Science issues seem to be a favorite target of the Bushies for political massaging but other important government operations have also seen the heavy hand of politics interfere with public policy decisions – decisions that affect the health, safety, and security of the American people.
The latest evidence of this practice comes from former Surgeon General Richard H. Carmona who testified before a Congressional Committee that the Administration fiddled with public health reports because of political considerations:
Former Surgeon General Richard H. Carmona told a Congressional committee today that top officials in the Bush administration repeatedly tried to weaken or suppress important public health reports because of political considerations.Dr. Carmona, who served as surgeon general from 2002 to 2006, said White House officials would not allow him to speak or issue reports about stem cells, emergency contraception, sex education, or prison, mental and global health issues because of political concerns. Top administration officials delayed for years and attempted to “water down†a landmark report on secondhand tobacco smoke, he said in sworn testimony before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.
He was ordered to mention President Bush three times on every page of every speech he gave, Dr. Carmona said. He was asked to make speeches to support Republican political candidates and to attend political briefings, at least one of which included Karl Rove, the president’s senior political adviser, he said.
Just because the Surgeon General is nominally a political appointment in that the post is filled by someone nominated by the President doesn’t mean that the job itself should be politicized. And to believe that reports and studies that would have an immediate impact on the health of American citizens should be held hostage to some myopic political views promoted by the White House is outrageous.
This attitude of politicizing government functions that should be non-political is not confined to health issues. The Administration has also grossly interferred in EPA rulemaking regarding issues such as auto emissions, management of public lands, pesticide bans, and other matters that would ordinarily not be political footballs. And the Administration practice of hiring lobbyists as regulators – 100 such hirings in the last 6 years – smacks of asking the fox to watch the chickens. One such lobbyist turned regulator, Philip Cooney, routinely altered reports by Administration scientists on climate change despite the fact the gentleman had a law degree and knew little of science.
A certain amount of political oversight of federal regulatory agencies is to be expected. The Clinton Administration subjected climate change data from their own EPA to “inter agency review” which indicated a political interest in seeing that the information coming out of various studies was in tune with their message of man-made global warming. George Bush #41 did something similar with AIDS research. But no Administration in memory has politicized the functions of government to the extent that this Administration has.
Should conservatives care about this issue? Altering findings of scientific studies to bring them in line with an Administration’s political agenda is not only dishonest but makes for very inefficient government. It’s a waste of taxpayer’s money to ask a government agency to study a problem and then alter the findings to suit the politics of the moment. Besides, there are legitimate safety and health issues at stake and if the government politicizes these questions to satisfy industry supporters, it stands to reason that the American people will be put at risk for the sake of politics. No responsible conservative can possibly countenance such practices.
The US attorney firings at the Department of Justice are another example of this idea that the Administration has tried to politicize too many government functions that are best left outside the purview of politics. If one were to look at this particular issue separately, it might just be a question of a desire to put a Bush imprimatur on the offices of dozens of federal prosecutors. But when placed in the context of what else has been going on in government over the last six years, it becomes one more example of politics intruding where it has no business intruding. Not only were the firings themselves badly botched but the reasons didn’t make much sense. In fact, one could say that the only reason it was done is because it could be done. And that’s no way to run a railroad – or a government.
There’s nothing illegal in all of this. But charges of incompetence, cronyism, and just plain bad governance have dogged this Administration for several years. And the reason is that when you politicize government where it should be apolitical, the people you depend on to make the government run smoothly and efficiently become more concerned with pleasing their masters in the White House than getting the job done. This leads to inefficiency, error, and a lowering of morale in the permanent bureaucracy.
Perhaps the Bushies just can’t help themselves. If so, the damage their lack of willpower has done to the functioning of government will be difficult to repair when the next President takes office in 2008.
7:44 am
Excuse me, but what color is the sky where you live?
Not to be to disrespectful, but the politicization that you speak of began some time ago. No, not under Clinton. Further back then that.
This has been going on since the Washington administration to one extent or another. Take a look at the Grant, Roosevelt, (Both of them), Harding, et al. administrations. They all indulged in it.
IMHO, you may want to do a tad more research.
FYI
I contracted BDS about a month ago and have stopped supporting the moron in the White House, at least domestically.
7:55 am
Perhaps I didn’t highlight the fact enough that every president has politicized government to some extent. But my point is clear – never before in history have so many functions of government been hijacked by politics.
And perhaps YOU should read the article a little more closely. If you had, it would have been clear.
8:30 am
I disagree.
Creeping socialism through Bueracratese is a politicization of it’s own kind. While I am also upset at a clear brand of politicization I nevertheless see a need for a generic political cleaning of the buearacracy. We need to install a culture of proffessionalism and meritocracy.
I work for the Gov’t and see the current hiring of contractors vs Civil Service as baby syeps in this direction. Gov’t Civil Service behaves like an aristocracy. This needs to be Broken. The bush administration as usual has the motives of the angels but the method of a third world soft dictatorship.
8:32 am
i think that ned’s exactly right. you’ve taken a particular instance and made a generalization. it’s ridiculous to claim that bottom-level research or information isn’t politicized in the first place, especially when you have people of a certain ilk flocking to government service for various reasons, not the least of which is a belief in the all-encompassing infallibility of government. and off the top of my head i can think of ridiculous abuses of political power from the previous administration. i mean using the irs to gather evidence against your political opponents, arbitrarily firing apolitical government employees, misrepresenting commerce department numbers to enhance the wealth effect created by the farcical clinton economy, doj cronyism on a level not achieved by this administration. all of these don’t exactly fit into the apolitical mold that you’ve constructed, but then why be conservative unless you fundamentally mistrust the enormous government bureaucracy as politically warped when the motives are there to abuse the system. the intrinsic problem with liberalism is that it supports the enlarging of the government morass until the liberals have been thrown from power. this article represents the apex of acquiescence to the meme/s of the msm. and for the sake of argument, let’s assume that you’re correct that no one has politicized apolitical institutions to this degree before (patently ridiculous but let’s just say) this is a perfect argument for the pruning of the government vines ie. getting rid of government agencies which do nothing but overregulate and produce politicized misinformation.
8:40 am
The denial of your commenters is precious.
In its own way, the manipulation that Dr. Carmona addresses is more insidious than the politicalization of the Just-Ice Department or the disemboweling of FEMA. This cuts to the bone of the need for the government to collect, analyse and dispense medical and public health information unfettered by political or proprietary considerations.
Conservative Republicans who have unfailingly backed their president presumably have loved ones who are faced with medical crises from time to time. Without wishing harm on any of them or those loved ones, I would hope that even a small handful weigh the words of Dr. Carmona as they sit in the visitors room of a nursing home in some future year and look into the distant eyes of a spouse or parent whose end-of-life outcome might have been different had it not been for the deceit of the White House.
Compassionate conservatism, my ass.
9:09 am
the audacity of the idea that the government has the ability to produce the kind of information utopia that you speak of is downright laughable. since grade school we’ve been fed half-truths and bad science wrought by a do-gooder government or political hack including stuff like “recycling will save the planet” or “embryonic stem cell research funded by the government will allow chris reeves to get up and walk”. frankly, science must compete in the market the same as anything else and stand up to scrutiny of experimentation and skepticism provided by various institutions, including those of higher learning, privately-funded think tanks, special-interest research, amateur experts etc. using government as the means to produce information that is used by government to enact policy is flawed, pure and simple, besides the fact that government is at its core political, it is the most susceptible to legislative whims, politically correct, swings of power, and regulatory immobilization.
the notion that the government has been struggling, thumb-plugging the dikes against an impending healthcare plague while conservative skeptics and gwb have been jackhammering the levies is so hyperbolic that someone just might as well invoke godwin’s law.
10:41 am
I don’t think I see it as much as a politicization, because (as previously pointed out) these kinds of shenanigans have been going on throughout the history of the world, and we tend to only look at current times as more important than past history because of what the future holds.
However, I do believe that what you’ve touched on is more of an increase in political hatred of the opposing party. I think this increase in the emotions started with Clinton’s impeachment where the Republican’s were in rage that he wouldn’t resign and the staunch support of Democrats in his defense. Then, in 2000 the damn burst with the Florida recount fiasco.
Things seemed to settle down a bit after 9/11, but now there is blood in the water and the hatred has surpassed anything during the Clinton years.
Back in the 1980’s, Ronald Reagan and Tip O’Neill could enjoy drinks together after 5:00, no hard feelings…that’s where we need to get back to, but I just don’t see that happening anytime too soon.
No matter what happens in 2008, barring a third Clinton term, January 2009 will hopefully come as a breath of fresh air for both sides.
11:22 am
Rick,
I think you have a touch of BDS. Since when is anything out of an agency not shown in a political light? Brownie was FEMA director for 4 of the top 10 hurricanes in US history in 2004 totaling more than $50bn and not a whimper was heard, yet Katrina he is reduced to a Bush crony, truth is, he did a heck of a job. You on the other hand were wrong about him too. This SG is a phony that should have resigned if he didn’t like it. Why should he be allowed an agenda, he wasn’t elected. We have an agenda driven agency head at NASA running around the country telling us he is being prevented to tell us his views about global warming while he is telling us his views about global warming. I think you don’t understand beltway politics where anything anyone says can be used as a political weapon by the opposition. When Greg Mankiw as Bush’s Chairman of economic advisors talked about our dynamic economy as “creative destruction” it set off a firestorm by Democrats.
11:30 am
JohnMc,
The Reagan Tipp O’Neil after hours drinks is a MSM myth. In Reagan’s book of letters he couldn’t stand what O’Neil said in public, thought it was un-gentlemanly. Reagan had hard feelings, he didn’t like O’Neil’s public ridicule. Same thing that Clinton did to Republicans, he would make agreements in private only to come out in public to ridicule Republicans for what he had just agreed upon.
11:51 am
Former Surgeon General Richard Carmona denounces Bush administration’s political interference…
WASHINGTON | President Bush’s most recent surgeon general accused the administration Tuesday…
1:12 pm
One of the really great things about politicizing the JUSTICE Department is that defense attorneys across this great country get to reexamine their cases and possibly demand NEW TRIALS for their clients. Plus, those awaiting trial are filing for dismissal because the trials are politically motivated. Awesome!
Yes, this is actually happening right now. I can’t even imagine the massive amount wasted time an money this is going to be. That’s not even mentioning the amount of trust and faith lost in the DOJ itself.
Un-F’ING-Believable.
1:38 pm
Please read Molly Ivin’s “Bushwhacked: Life in George W. Bush’s America.” Even if you don’t like liberals. Perhaps especially if you don’t like liberals. A more devastating exposition of Bush’s dismantling of science, the social safety net, and government in general cannot be found. With very clear evidence.
2:29 pm
Sorry, but your thesis is wrong from the get go. This administration is doing business as usual for any presidential administration. The nasty politicization you speak of is coming from the other side—the democrats and the media—who find one ex-official after another who wants to write a book, be on Larry King, have his arm rubbed by Ann Curry, whatever. These are guys in their mid-50s. Their careers are basically on the downslope. Their best hope is some kind of bogus “consultant” job. But they need the ink to get those first contracts. And what better ink to get then “I was so righteous in my job that the Bushies got mad at me and tried to silence me.”
And not only is the democrat-controlled media politicizing this, as you say, but WORSE YET, they are criminalizing it! The best these ex-employees can hope for is that the democrat controlled Congress launches an “investigation” into the fact that politics goes on in Washington. That’ll get them lots of those consultant jobs they pine for.
I like your website, but don’t fall for this trash. This guy’s workin’ for the dems and everyone knows it.
2:58 pm
Rick, if I found this on a left wing site I would have blown it off a partisanship, I don’t know if I agree but coming from you this is worth looking into. Since every administration has done this to some extent how would you make sure this does not happen again regardless of who is in power?
3:25 pm
The Muzzling of Carmona: Other Reactions. ...
I’ve already said my piece here. Here are what some other bloggers have to say (many of which I found via Memeorandum). I wanted to include more reactions from the right, but the rightward-tilting blogs I usually read haven’t (yet) taken a position. ...
3:58 pm
DKM
Do you have any references for your claims, any facts? I am old enough to remember John Kennedy in office, and I can’t think of any other administration so hell bent on controlling access to information and decision-making processes and warping the rules of legal conduct by the Executive branch. Not even Nixon.
I no longer see control of the media by the left. Many major news sources are not left leaning, Murdoch’s enterprises, Fox News for example. The MSM, as it has been Rushified, holds a great deal of responsibility for giving a free pass to the Bush Administration on the run up to the Iraq war. Very little investigation into the claims of WMD, the supposed menace to America by Saddam, etc. If that seems a left wing controlled media to you, you perhaps need to think it through a little more.
I don’t know your age, but I can assume you do not possess decades of adult experience. You will be “old” in a blink of the eye, and I suspect you will not see yourself as a has been at that time. I suspect you will also rue your current statements as foolishness. Hey, I voted for Nixon in the greatest sincerity. A personal dumbass moment for me as well.
6:03 pm
ed Said:
1:38 pm
Please read Molly Ivin’s “Bushwhacked: Life in George W. Bush’s America.†Even if you don’t like liberals. Perhaps especially if you don’t like liberals. A more devastating exposition of Bush’s dismantling of science, the social safety net, and government in general cannot be found. With very clear evidence.
Where do I start here
Ed who has dismantled or more really manipulated science more than Al Gore?
Show me where the safety net was a required service, do you have something against learning a trade doing a job and not just sitting back looking for some legislative handout designed to leave you beholding and thus a locked in voter to maintain the status quo.
Remember charity , it works. Remember self reliance and pulling yourself up by your bootstraps.
Get a degree in underwater basket weaving and complain you can’t find a job.
I am sure you can justify all those positions.
8:15 pm
Rick Moran,
a post full of insights. But let ME go a step farther (and I wonder whether you would follow me here …):
Didn’t the Bush team get to office – among other reasons – because they displayed contempt for government and bureaucracy and politics, something that appealed to many voters?
You cannot expect those who harbour contempt for government and bureaucracy to run government and bureaucracy competently.
Only those who understand that strong government is a good and necessary thing, and know that bureaucracy, if led well, can act with efficience and correctness – only those might provide you with a good government.
Europe has some good examples that this is so. The Scandinavian countries, Switzerland, and some more … Also Asia: Singapor, Malaysia, Taiwan, South Korea, Japan.
“Starve the beast” is out.
8:46 pm
Ed said:
I no longer see control of the media by the left. Many major news sources are not left leaning, Murdoch’s enterprises, Fox News for example. The MSM, as it has been Rushified, holds a great deal of responsibility for giving a free pass to the Bush Administration on the run up to the Iraq war. Very little investigation into the claims of WMD, the supposed menace to America by Saddam, etc. If that seems a left wing controlled media to you, you perhaps need to think it through a little more.
I have heard this tired argument from just about every lefty I know. You know, and I know, that 9 out of 10 mainstream reporters are not just democrats, but activist democrats. This is a fact shown in study after study of the political leanings of the press. So then the argument goes to corporate ownership of the media, as if these CEOs are leaning over the shoulder of Tim Russert or Wolf Blitzer telling them what to say. It’s ridiculous.
A Republican administration is going to have countless charges of politicizing because the politics they bring to the table are not the politics the media likes.
And as to the examples you asked for: Consider coverage of Bill Clinton’s pardons vs. Bush’s commutation of Libby’s sentence.
For that matter, consider the coverage of Libby’s “perjury” vs. Clinton’s perjury.
Consider the coverage of Bush’s SEVEN attorney general firings vs. Clinton firing ALL OF THEM to get rid of two that were investigating his associates.
Consider the non-coverage of Harry Reid’s bogus land deals in Nevada and Dianne Feinstein’s gross corruption in sending more than $1 billion in military contracts to companies controlled by her husband.
Corrupt democrats get a pass in this media environment, and Republicans get charged with corruption where none exists. It is utterly ridiculous to argue otherwise.
And as to my age, I’m old enough to recognize partisan nonsense when I see it.
10:03 pm
re: the damage their lack of willpower has done to the functioning of government will be difficult to repair when the next President takes office in 2008.
Maybe but to the extent you and other Bush supporters quickly repudiate what has happened, the better the chance for real governance by the time of the next President…
10:55 pm
“For that matter, consider the coverage of Libby’s “perjury†vs. Clinton’s perjury.”
I’m just curious, but- are you serious? Really?
4:21 am
A Sporting Chance: Promote It Like Beckham…
Football’s David Beckham is coming to Hollywood. But does the aging English sporting star still have what it takes to bring a touch of stardom to the L.A. Galaxy, and some much-needed publicity to Major League Soccer? By Rick Moran,......
6:01 am
to DKM, who wrote:
“... Consider coverage of Bill Clinton’s pardons vs. Bush’s commutation of Libby’s sentence.
For that matter, consider the coverage of Libby’s “perjury†vs. Clinton’s perjury.”
Dear DKM,
Clinton had to protect his private sphere against a kind of totalitarian moralist abuse of state institutions encroaching his private life.
The sex you have (or don’t have) is a private matter, as long as you do not do harm to anybody with it.
Why should Clinton not have sex with Monica Levinsky? The two persons who have to address this question – privately! – are Monica and Hillary. Not you and me or the rest of the world.
In such a case to embark on public inquiry is moralist totalitarianism. Fortunately most Americans understood that and – although fascinated by the pornographic appeal of the topic – did not condemn Clinton. And did not think the juridical procedures Congress imposed on the case were sane.
Keep private things private! The President’s private life must not be part of politics – unless he does not do harm to those involved in his private life.
The crime of investigating in his private sphere was a bigger one than the crime of perjury, which in this case was legitimate self-defence. If somebody is up to kill you you are legally allowed to defend your life by shooting back.
(I am again and again astonished that my American students forget to shut the door. Germans usually don’t forget that. Does that show less effort to keep privat matters privat? Is that an element of intercultural difference?)
7:48 am
Lord have mercy, are you folks serious? Your Clinton revisionist history may work on the main stream media, but I have a better memory. Clinton LIED under oath when he was being SUED for sexual harassment. No one gave a rat’s ass about his private life, until it intersected with his criminal behavior and formed a pattern that was relevant to the LEGAL proceedings. THAT is why the Lewinsky testimony was being sought. His “private sphere” was being investigated because he had abused his power with female underlings, and the Lewinsky affair further demonstrated that. He LIED in order to OBSTRUCT JUSTICE.
And back to my original point, Clinton’s democrat friends in the media have managed to rewrite history and use the old white out tape on the sexual harassment thing, though Clinton paid nearly a million dollars in damages to make it go away.
Gosh, the left used to take this male privilege, abuse of power stuff seriously. I’m shocked, shocked I tell you, at the inconsistency!
3:37 pm
Note that when DKM talks of Clinton’s perjury (message #19), he does so matter-of-factly, without scare quotes or qualifiers; yet he when he talks about Libby, suddenly the quotes come out and it’s “perjury.” You’d think Libby was the one acquitted, rather than vice-versa.
But no matter. History, like science, is all malleable in the service of the GOP.
5:22 pm
To DKM:
As far as I know, Monica Lewinsky never said that she was harrassed. Her sex affair with Clinton was consensual.
It is just your innuendo that she considered herself as being harrassed.
Sure, Clinton lied and committed perjury – I conceded that, and I also concede that he tried to obstuct justice in this case.
DKM, read my post again! I conceded a lot, maybe more than I should.
So now, DKM, answer my challenge: Clinton was right to do so, because he had to fend off an intrusion into his private life.
In Germany, by the way, we do not allow oaths in such cases – because we consider it comprehensible or even your right to lie – in such a case.
7:11 pm
One of the major problems in Federal Agencies is the ‘turf’ they claim and their inability to work with other Agencies on areas that cross ‘turf’ boundaries. This is highly detrimental in the Intelligence Community and the discussion by folks who have come from the IC. From what I have seen: when government tries to put extra layers of ‘oversight’ into the system, accountability within the system actually decreases. Soon that layer of ‘oversight’ is getting its own sets of funds, personnel, support staff… and adding to any problems that pre-existed and has no incentive to actually fix those problems.
If the Dept. of Education actually worked, then the reading levels would be far higher than they were in 1958 when Johnny couldn’t read. After tens of billions of dollars thrown at this, the reading level remains constant with only minor deviations and always moderates back to the mean. Yes, children do not learn to read any better today than they did in 1958. Instead of working to solve the problem, once and for all, the Dept. of Education exists to continue the problem, along with all the support personnel and entire industry to propose ‘solutions’ that never get anywhere.
In the arena of Foreign Policy, we now have bureaucrats seeing Administrations not as their boss, but just a temporary fixture which is worked around while the oh-so-wise bureaucrats put forth the ‘real’ foreign policy of the Nation. A policy ‘wonk’ is adored, because the bureaucracy can work wonders to make such individuals stagnate and get into bureaucratic blind alleys that it isn’t funny. Meanwhile the more ‘general’ sort of manager is ‘buffered’ from the actual decisions going on and given little insight or say into how they happen. This is not only a Foreign Policy problem but is across the entire civil service. Presidents are temporary, and if you just outwait them then the ‘real work’ can be done, don’t mind the fact that it isn’t what the President wants…. temporary…
That is why when Ronald Reagan was elected, everyone thought he was going to bring a chainsaw to the Federal Government, maybe kill off some large departments and stop the Dept. of Education before it actually got off the ground. Instead he brought the fertilizer and watering hose and planted some kudzu.
Personally, I would prefer that a President make sweeping changes so that the bureaucracy actually needs to adjust to a new Administration. To do that, however, requires that Presidents actually exercise the one great authority given to the office, by Congress, in the 1970’s. That is the power over the Senior Service in Agencies which is not part of the Civil Service. All those Senior Executive Service (or Intelligence Service) positions are one year contracts, renewable for up to four years before renegotiating. Yes, don’t renew the contracts en mass: require an SES ‘reset’ without discrimination for any part of the Federal Government and have the senior bureaucrats report in the interim.
Even better is something else the Federal Government can do on any of its contracts: Terminate for Convenience (T4C). And because it is the government, it does not have to pay a single, red cent on a T4C.
From these two things there is a concept that can be created by any President who actually wants to control the Government, not be tweaking around the edges: Fire until competence is found.
Want to stop leaks at the CIA? Let the SIS know that this concept will now be implemented across the board: one leak, they all go. Ditto DoD, State, Justice…
Really, I don’t mind political appointees. It is the ones who try to worm their way into the civil service and then fortify their political positions that I detest. They make work harder to get done by trying to enforce their own politics downwards from a civil service position, which are damned hard to end. Don’t give them the opportunity and clean sweep the lot of them, top to bottom. Yes, this will cause some chaos… but it will remind the bureaucrats who they work for: the elected representative of the American People via the Constitution, The President.
Continuity has gotten stagnation and made it so the ‘politicization’ is seen as a ‘bad thing’. You ELECTED a President based on political outlook and should vote that way… you should also want the Federal Government to be limited, so that political patrons put into Senior positions know their butt is going to be out the door when the President goes. Limit the opportunity for mischief. And force the bureaucracy to actually have to expand the way it thinks and does work so as to adjust to different outlooks. That is why you vote a new President into office: to change the course of the Nation. Instead we get minor deviations on a course set just like the Captain of the Titanic set it.
In front of the iceberg.
Can’t hit it! No! That costs money! Breaks a few dishes! Might be some strained muscles by the passangers or even a broken arm or leg! Much, much, much safer to avoid the iceberg….
The sound that was heard was multiple containment sections being ripped open by the unseen part of the iceberg. But it was a great course right up to that point! The paint job was so very safe… right up to when it wasn’t. Then no one could save it.
You can’t get a good and efficient government by putting it in charge of outlook.
You can get one that is flexible and adjusts to the changing Will of the People, however… but some of that messy politics just might intrude.
Choose carefully, we can no longer stop the ship, the course of the iceberg and the mass of the ship means forward. Some messy politics all over? Or a government that no longer sees a need to adjust to the People? Best decide soon… the options are ever more limited as time goes.
10:35 pm
ajacksonian, you nailed it (in a stream of conciousness kind of way)!! The people elect the President and expect the executive branch to follow his (our) will. Yet the government civil service behaves as if the gov belongs to them. After all, they stay around after the current administration leaves. In order for the President to enact his policies, his appointees, by law, must subborn to him. Rick, you have once again (Iraq) fallen off the horse. Sorry
8:31 am
to CDOR and ajacksonian – “The people elect the President and expect the executive branch to follow his (our) will. Yet the government civil service behaves as if the gov belongs to them. After all, they stay around after the current administration leaves. In order for the President to enact his policies, his appointees, by law, must subborn to him.”:
(subborn = subdue?)
That reminds me of our two European examples where this establishment of Real Leadership worked: Mussolini’s Fascist Italy, and Hitler’s Nazi Germany.
Democracy works due to checks and balances. Among them: the stability and non-populist structure of bureaucracy. The government belongs to the bureaucracy, indeed – PARTLY. It has to, it cannot be different. Otherwise things won’t work.
Really, I don’t want PEOPLE (in form of a mob) to decide directly and immediately, as they like. Our complex democratic procedures help to avoid short-sighted and partisan and often extremist and incompetent mob decisions. And it is good that a President is bound to implementation of his policy by a bureaucracy which has its own mind and leverage.
Usually, bureaucracy is more competent than the President or the people who voted him (or maybe soon: her) into office.
We should not try to establish a Mob President to rule us.
Yet I agree of course that bureaucracy has to be controlled, too, and has to be corrected, and has to be led. But please not by a mob, or by a President who can act like a King.
I doubt that those who only have contempt for bureaucracy can improve bureaucracy. They will only damage it further, poison it, abuse it for their partisan purposes – as we can observe.
On the longer run people’s will does prevail. Provided people really have a will and insist in this will.
Iraq withdrawal may become an example.
But it is important also that the President does not simply follow the polls. Bush is right insofar he says that government has to look farther than the poll opinion of the people.
(I do not want to defend here Bush’s decision to stay his Iraq course which is plain wrong; I defend the principle that government has to keep SOME independence from polls – as well as from bureaucracy, but “some independence” does not mean absolute or pure or complete independence: it’s all about the complex work of checks and balances in which ALL powers are involved.—- Such reflections may be too complicated for binary thinkers. For Manicheans of Good And Evil.)
3:04 pm
never before in history have so many functions of government been hijacked by politics.
Do you intend to share the drugs you are on ?
Remember WHoDB ? The White House DataBase used by the Clintons used to fill political slots and solicit contributions (Hatch Act ?).
I will grant you that this may be the clumsiest handling of political appointments/firings, but your basic assertion is quite myopic.
5:46 am
Um, government is the political institution. “Politicizing government” is like “wetting water”.
The problem here is not that government is getting politicized, but that government must politicize everything it touches, sooner or later. We have lots of examples, from education to the post office, of what happens when the government runs things. We even see the pattern in industries that are nominally private but effectively government-directed—health care, for instance. (As a Canadian, I’m just appalled by how many Americans still think that the solution to the latter is to take the 90% government-controlled mess you have now and make it 100%. You folks better smarten up soon, or our horror stories will be yours.
6:46 am
The politicization of government just makes outcome based objectives obsolete, or at least in the sense of the actual real policy being instituted. Think about it if everything has to fit a political hypothetical notion but because of poor administration of real working solutions the political theory can never be disproved as faulty or corrupt. If a company makes a identity piece about itself , shows consumers a catalog of their ideas or products but never actually makes them how can one say that their product is faulty? Also the flip side is when for example a competitor for investors IE: The Democrats, actually deliver their product the GOP points to its flaws and labels it a failure, thus setting up a ruse in the form of having a viable, in theory, but an alternative that is mostly just a political bias. Pretty cool huh? Unfortunately the investors in this theory will want an actual return.
9:46 am
To Seerak:
Isn’t there a difference between “political” and “partisan”?
Isn’t there a differnce between “governmental” and “partisan”?
I hope there is still one in the USA.
If not you really are lost.
I really hope that judges in the USA still judge from law, which is something governmental, but not partisan.
And I also hope that taxes, although political, are designed and raised not according to partisan rules.
And I hope that facts are allowed to remain facts independent whether they fit into the partisan view of one party or not.
7:33 pm
visitor to the site—very impressive, and impressive posts. I’m one of the hippie liberal baby-killing lefties (not Dem, though—independent), so feel free to take my comments with whatever grains of salt you like.
For the above “Clinton did it too” posters . . . I’ve seen variations on this theme at several sites, but most of the locations were too amped up on hate to have serious dialogue. I’ve always wanted to ask the logic of that position. Presuming you are all correct, and the Clinton Administration was the Fountain of All Evil (something I’m not affirming or denying), how does it make W look good to compare him to Clinton?
“W politicized the Surgeon General’s Office!!”
“Oh yeah? Well, Clinton politicized the mailroom!!”
“. . . and that was a bad thing, right? Something you wanted him to be punished for, right?”
“Of course!! And that’s why W’s doing the same is totally not a bad thing!”
“?????”
To me, that defense of the administration damns it more than exculpates it (if I correctly guage your collective opinion of Slick Willie as “poisonous pond scum”). Even assuming Clinton was worse (again, not for or against, just assuming), the argument doesn’t help W:
“W, you took my wallet!!
“Oh year? Clinton robbed a bank!!”
” . . . so, I still want my friggin’ wallet back!”
It just doesn’t make sense to me, any more than the “everybody does it” defense. I don’t know where you all live, but here (in NE PA) everybody speeds on the highway. Everybody, with no exceptions. If Mr. Quota decides to pull you over and write you a speeding ticket, “everybody’s doing it” does not get you out of trouble—in fact, I believe they call it a “confession”.
I’m not trying to troll, I’m honestly wondering why you offer these arguments. Let me rephrase that—why does either “Clinton was worse” or “everybody does it” seem to exonerate W’s behavior for you?