Cronyism.

[palehorse]

ok, so let me get this straight... cronyism is a new thing? It's a "Bush thing"?!

ummm, no.

do me a favor, all of you, and please look up JFK and RFK... or FDR... or Lincoln... or Washington... or.... or...

Still, it is more than a little ironic for Bush's opponents on both Left and Right to be crying foul as though cronyism is not a permanent feature of the American political landscape. As Rick Brookhiser points out, cronyism has a long history in American politics. And as Jonah Goldberg noted in his qualified defense of cronyism, it is the soul of all political machines.

Abe's Cronies
Lincoln understood this very well, for while he himself was relatively free of nepotism (with the exception of some relatives of Mary Todd), his administration was heavily marked by cronyism. This stands to reason insofar as Lincoln, a man without family, rose to prominence through his talent for forming friendships. And friends delight in being useful to each other. It was Lincoln's Illinois friends who fanned out like a phalanx and got him nominated for the presidency at the Chicago convention, and he left no friend behind when it was time to staff his first administration. (A wonderful book has been written giving chapter and verse on his appointments, called Lincoln and the Patronage.)

Lincoln, having been deeply involved in building the Illinois Republican party, understood that patronage ? jobs for the boys ? is the sine qua non of a political organization. Ideology is important, but patronage is the glue that holds it together. In the words of G. W. Plunkitt, ?Men ain't in politics for nothin'. They expect to get somethin' out of it.? The lifeblood of politics is the undisclosed commerce in favors that goes on behind the scenes. It is a dance of reciprocity: You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours. Patronage creates a web of obligations, a moral economy based on loyalty and gratitude. As Joseph P. Kennedy's father P. J. Kennedy used to say ? a great political boss in his day ? "Be grateful and be loyal."

This insight was not lost on FDR, who was arguably the greatest master of patronage in American history. The alphabet soup of federal agencies created by the New Deal was a patronage bonanza, creating over 100,000 new jobs which were listed for convenience in a little volume called the "Plum Book." Somewhere in FDR's correspondence is a brief note written to postmaster James A. Farley ? the traditional chief of federal patronage ? in regards to a particularly persistent and irritating office seeker: "For god's sake, if you love me, find a place for this woman!"

All of this is very ancient and is essentially coeval with bureaucracy. We can leave out the ancient Chinese imperial civil service and skip ahead to the papal curia. Each cardinal had what was called a "familia" ? a retinue of bureaucratic retainers who depended on him for their appointments and sinecures. Since one's fortunes were permanently tied to those of your benefactor, considerable foresight was required in choosing the right patron. The pope's familia was the highest and enjoyed the richest spoils. They also functioned as an engine of mobility in an otherwise static society: Many a priest of humble origin rose to the heights of power and wealth through the patronage of a high-ranking prince of the church, and many became cardinals and popes themselves.

An 18th-century general's staff was likewise called his "military family." The most famous in our history was Washington's, which included the sons of many prominent Virginia families, as well as Alexander Hamilton, a nobody from nowhere who rose through Washington's patronage to the heights of the American establishment. (Hamilton is a great study in nepotism and cronyism, since he started his New York legal practice by exploiting his father-in-law's business connections ? exactly as John Adams did.)

Source

duh.

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

Never thought dumbya 'invented' it. He and his moronic minions are just masters at it.

 

[JacobJ]

Originally posted by: palehorse74
ok, so let me get this straight... cronyism is a new thing? It's a "Bush thing"?!

ummm, no.

do me a favor, all of you, and please look up JFK and RFK... or FDR... or Lincoln... or Washington... or.... or...

Why? Cronyism has negative effects no matter who is doing it -- and that is reason enough to combat it! Doesn't matter who is doing it.

 

[dahunan]

You are so lost.. AGAIN

If a new holocaust started you would probably defend the person who started it saying that "Hitler did it too"

Didn't this type of playground BS stop at least after you left High School?

 

[dahunan]

The only thing Dumbya has been first at are things we hope humanity never repeats.. quite an accomplishment.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Sheik Yerbouti
Never thought dumbya 'invented' it. He and his moronic minions are just masters at it.

Exactly. They've taken cronyism to new and ever-frightful heights.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: JacobJ

Originally posted by: palehorse74
ok, so let me get this straight... cronyism is a new thing? It's a "Bush thing"?!

ummm, no.

do me a favor, all of you, and please look up JFK and RFK... or FDR... or Lincoln... or Washington... or.... or...

Why? Cronyism has negative effects no matter who is doing it -- and that is reason enough to combat it! Doesn't matter who is doing it.

try reading the link. some political scholars believe that cronyism can be a positive thing.

It's similar to running a prestigious school or firm. The institutions begin to gather the best and the brightest, similar to a snowball rolling down a hill, or a magnet. They fill their vacancies and requirements by reaching out for those around them who are worthy of the job. In this way, the institutions become more and pristegious and effective as they grow in size.

The same can be said of great families and cronyistic groups such as those found in politics. A politician's career is defined by those he/she surrounds themselves with, and most will set out to do so with the best and brightest that their friends and families have to offer during the very early stages of their careers. The morons get weeded out along the way...

It's a very natural and ancient system, and it has been a part of American politics even before the founding of our nation.

 

[dahunan]

Arabian Horse Trainers being put in charge of Federal Emergency Management Agency?? YIKES

 

[dahunan]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: JacobJ

Originally posted by: palehorse74
ok, so let me get this straight... cronyism is a new thing? It's a "Bush thing"?!

ummm, no.

do me a favor, all of you, and please look up JFK and RFK... or FDR... or Lincoln... or Washington... or.... or...

Why? Cronyism has negative effects no matter who is doing it -- and that is reason enough to combat it! Doesn't matter who is doing it.

try reading the link. some political scholars believe that cronyism can be a positive thing.

It's similar to running a prestigious school or firm. The institutions begin to gather the best and the brightest, similar to a snowball rolling down a hill, or a magnet. They fill their vacancies and requirements by reaching out for those around them who are worthy of the job. In this way, the institutions become more and pristegious and effective as they grow in size.

The same can be said of great families and cronyistic groups such as those found in politics. A politician's career is defined by those he/she surrounds themselves with, and most will set out to do so with the best and brightest that their friends and families have to offer during the very early stages of their careers. The morons get weeded out along the way...

It's a very natural and ancient system, and it has been a part of American politics even before the founding of our nation.

Educational systems are not quite the same as politicians

Politicians are mostly criminals.. who surround themselves with people who will not tell on them

 

[palehorse]

George W. Bush is by no means the "worst," in terms of cronyistic or nepotistic appointments made by Presidents.

The anti's love to think so, and say that he is, but that doesnt change the fact that they're very wrong.

 

[BDawg]

Bush is the Chick-Fil-A of cronyism. He didn't invent the cronyism sandwich, he perfected it.

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

Originally posted by: palehorse74
George W. Bush is by no means the "worst," in terms of cronyistic or nepotistic appointments made by Presidents.

The anti's love to think so, and say that he is, but that doesnt change the fact that they're very wrong.

Right, and you're the one who's always right capt underoos. Sorry, not this time.

 

[nageov3t]

I think everyone is willing to look the other way if cronies get put into meaningless, paper-pushing jobs that affect no one.

it's quite a different thing to put them in charge of FEMA.

 

[palehorse]

JFK appointed his own brother as Attorney General. was that a "meaningless, paper-pushing job" that affected no one?

hmm...

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

jeb bush made his brother prez, what's your point?

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: Sheik Yerbouti
jeb bush made his brother prez, what's your point?

wait, I thought that the SC did so? which is it? oh ya... whichever one fits your argument at any particular time, that's right!

 

[dullard]

Originally posted by: palehorse74
It's similar to running a prestigious school or firm. The institutions begin to gather the best and the brightest, similar to a snowball rolling down a hill, or a magnet. They fill their vacancies and requirements by reaching out for those around them who are worthy of the job. In this way, the institutions become more and pristegious and effective as they grow in size.

The same can be said of great families and cronyistic groups such as those found in politics. A politician's career is defined by those he/she surrounds themselves with, and most will set out to do so with the best and brightest that their friends and families have to offer during the very early stages of their careers. The morons get weeded out along the way.

There is a big difference between politics and a school/firm. In a certain educational area, there are maybe 2-5 experts in any specific topic. Most likley a department chair/professor has collaborated with some or all of them. Most likely that person's papers have all been read, their skills are easilly measured. They know the experts underlings' work quite well too (the up and coming talent). It is easy to pick one or two people who are without a doubt the best in the world for your new position. Therefore cronyism in this situation will give you the best talent.

Politics is a completely different beast. Suppose you, palehorse74, are elected president. What is the chance that your friends/family are without a doubt the best in the world for a cabinet position? What are the chances that any of your friends/family the best in the world for a supreme court position? Slim to none. Simply put, you probably don't know the most suited person. Therefore cronyism in this situation will likely give you quite horrible talent.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: dullard

Originally posted by: palehorse74
It's similar to running a prestigious school or firm. The institutions begin to gather the best and the brightest, similar to a snowball rolling down a hill, or a magnet. They fill their vacancies and requirements by reaching out for those around them who are worthy of the job. In this way, the institutions become more and pristegious and effective as they grow in size.

The same can be said of great families and cronyistic groups such as those found in politics. A politician's career is defined by those he/she surrounds themselves with, and most will set out to do so with the best and brightest that their friends and families have to offer during the very early stages of their careers. The morons get weeded out along the way.

There is a big difference between politics and a school/firm. In a certain educational area, there are maybe 2-5 experts in any specific topic. Most likley a department chair/professor has collaborated with some or all of them. They know their underlings work quite well too. So it is easy to pick one or two people who are without a doubt the best in the world for your new position. Therefore cronyism in this situation will give you the best talent.

Politics is a completely different beast. Suppose you, palehorse74, are elected president. What is the chance that your friends/family are without a doubt the best in the world for a cabinet position? Slim to none. Simply put, you probably don't know the most suited person. Therefore cronyism in this situation will likely give you quite horrible talent.

we are talking about families and politicians who themselves come from superbly-educated families with a longgg history of profesional expertise in many areas. in order to apply your analogy, you would have to give me 2 or 3 generations to bring my family up to the same level of expertise and experience.

When 99% of your friends and family attend the best schools in the world, you are much more likely to know great people, or work with them... or know someone who does.

for the record, i dont necessarily agree with that philosophy, but it DOES have some scholatic merit.

And the primary purpose of this thread is to point out that Bush is by no means the most cronyistic or nepotistic President in history; not to necessarily justify either practice.

 

[nageov3t]

Originally posted by: palehorse74
JFK appointed his own brother as Attorney General. was that a "meaningless, paper-pushing job" that affected no one?

hmm...

but RFK was actually qualified for the job.

from wiki:

After a brief service in the Navy and officer training (V-12) at Bates College, Kennedy went on to attend Harvard. He became a three-year letterman for the Harvard College football team and graduated in 1948. He then enrolled at the University of Virginia School of Law, and earned his degree in 1951. Following law school, Kennedy managed his brother John's successful 1952 Senate campaign.

Kennedy served as Counsel with Roy Cohn to the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations during the McCarthy Hearings of 1953-54.

Kennedy soon made a name for himself as the chief counsel of the Senate Labor Rackets Committee hearings, which began in 1956. In a dramatic scene, Kennedy squared off against Jimmy Hoffa during the antagonistic argument that marked Hoffa's testimony. Kennedy left the Rackets Committee in 1959 in order to run his brother John's successful Presidential campaign.

 

[Engineer]

Apologist to the max.

Charles Manson didn't invent serial killing either so duh!

 

[techs]

There is a difference in appointing qualified people who happen to be your cronies and appointing thoroughly unqualified (Harriet Meiers, Elizabeth Cheny, Brownie, Gen. Meyers niece, Colin Powells son) to positions of importance.
Bush has almost universally put unqualified people who are his cronies in positions of great power.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: techs
There is a difference in appointing qualified people who happen to be your cronies and appointing thoroughly unqualified (Harriet Meiers, Elizabeth Cheny, Brownie, Gen. Meyers niece, Colin Powells son) to positions of importance.
Bush has almost universally put unqualified people who are his cronies in positions of great power.

on some counts you are correct, but, again, he is by no means worse than any other President in doing so. They have ALL done the same, and many were much worse.

of course, like I also said, none of that justifies the acts of cronyism or nepotism, but some of you need to read your histories a little more closely before exagerating in all of your arguments.

g'luck with the reading!

 

[outriding]

Originally posted by: loki8481

Originally posted by: palehorse74
JFK appointed his own brother as Attorney General. was that a "meaningless, paper-pushing job" that affected no one?

hmm...

but RFK was actually qualified for the job.

from wiki:

After a brief service in the Navy and officer training (V-12) at Bates College, Kennedy went on to attend Harvard. He became a three-year letterman for the Harvard College football team and graduated in 1948. He then enrolled at the University of Virginia School of Law, and earned his degree in 1951. Following law school, Kennedy managed his brother John's successful 1952 Senate campaign.

Kennedy served as Counsel with Roy Cohn to the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations during the McCarthy Hearings of 1953-54.

Kennedy soon made a name for himself as the chief counsel of the Senate Labor Rackets Committee hearings, which began in 1956. In a dramatic scene, Kennedy squared off against Jimmy Hoffa during the antagonistic argument that marked Hoffa's testimony. Kennedy left the Rackets Committee in 1959 in order to run his brother John's successful Presidential campaign.

PH where did you go?

 

[shadow9d9]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: techs
There is a difference in appointing qualified people who happen to be your cronies and appointing thoroughly unqualified (Harriet Meiers, Elizabeth Cheny, Brownie, Gen. Meyers niece, Colin Powells son) to positions of importance.
Bush has almost universally put unqualified people who are his cronies in positions of great power.

on some counts you are correct, but, again, he is by no means worse than any other President in doing so. They have ALL done the same, and many were much worse.

of course, like I also said, none of that justifies the acts of cronyism or nepotism, but some of you need to read your histories a little more closely before exagerating in all of your arguments.

g'luck with the reading!

Completely irrelevant... g'luck with the intelligence.

 

[shadow9d9]

It doesn't matter if Bush invented it or not... How is this relevant to anything?