Cronyism.

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

palehorse

Lifer
Dec 21, 2005
11,521
0
76
Originally posted by: shadow9d9
It doesn't matter if Bush invented it or not... How is this relevant to anything?

it was a continuation from another thread which turned into a flamewar and got locked. I never had a chance to point out the overabundance of ignorance in said thread, so I created a new one with the pipedream that it would remain flame-free...

/crosses fingers.
 

Theb

Diamond Member
Feb 28, 2006
3,533
9
76
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.


George W. Bush is the worst in terms of cronyistic or nepotistic appointments made by presidents.

The fanboys love to think he isn't, and say he isn't, but that doesn't change the fact that they're wrong.
 

Rainsford

Lifer
Apr 25, 2001
17,515
0
0
I do not understand the point of this thread. George W. Bush has filled numerous jobs with buddies that turn out to be totally incompetent. It doesn't matter that other people have hired their friends and relatives, or that some of them were incompetent. The condemnation of Bush for doing this isn't based on the idea that his actions are unique, his brand of cronyism is bad whether or not he's the first president to use it or simply the most recent.
 

WHAMPOM

Diamond Member
Feb 28, 2006
7,628
183
106
NO, this thread is justifying GW giving his sycophants jobs, that they were incompetent to handle. Palehorese's defence of the undefenceable, but more akin to Monty Pythons' "The Lumberjack Song" or a Capitol Steps' Spoof.
 

Rainsford

Lifer
Apr 25, 2001
17,515
0
0
Originally posted by: WHAMPOM
NO, this thread is justifying GW giving his sycophants jobs, that they were incompetent to handle. Palehorese's defence of the undefenceable, but more akin to Monty Pythons' "The Lumberjack Song" or a Capitol Steps' Spoof.

Indeed :)

I have noticed an interesting trend used in defending the Republicans lately. It's not that what they're doing is ok, it's that "everybody else does it!". Not exactly the moral high ground if you ask me.
 

WHAMPOM

Diamond Member
Feb 28, 2006
7,628
183
106
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...
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.

OH, but Kemo Sabe, Bush has made cronyism so much his own. All comparisons are like a match flame to a fire storm.
 

LcarsSystem

Senior member
Mar 13, 2006
691
0
0
Originally posted by: dahunan
The only thing Dumbya has been first at are things we hope humanity never repeats.. quite an accomplishment.

Failing an Oil Company and then failing the U.S.A. . Georgie boy is so qualified to run the country can't you tell from his impressive resume?

I just don't get the logic behind it, he fails a corporation so we give him the country, how does that work? Oh wait, nevermind...
 

LcarsSystem

Senior member
Mar 13, 2006
691
0
0
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.

If they are so good then why are we so hated, in debt, at war, and lied to?

 

WHAMPOM

Diamond Member
Feb 28, 2006
7,628
183
106
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Originally posted by: WHAMPOM
NO, this thread is justifying GW giving his sycophants jobs, that they were incompetent to handle. Palehorese's defence of the undefenceable, but more akin to Monty Pythons' "The Lumberjack Song" or a Capitol Steps' Spoof.

Indeed :)

I have noticed an interesting trend used in defending the Republicans lately. It's not that what they're doing is ok, it's that "everybody else does it!". Not exactly the moral high ground if you ask me.

The Republicans have made (turning a blind eye) a high art, but I think the party is losing it's solidarity now. Soon as the elections come around, they will be denouncing each other.
 

palehorse

Lifer
Dec 21, 2005
11,521
0
76
i'll repeat this one more time for the shortbus riders amongst us:
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.
 

dullard

Elite Member
May 21, 2001
26,066
4,712
126
Originally posted by: palehorse74
i'll repeat this one more time for the shortbus riders amongst us:
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.
Then I'll repeat this:
Originally posted by: dahunan
If a new holocaust started you would probably defend the person who started it saying that "Hitler did it too"
You are excusing Bush for doing something bad simply because others have done it too. That isn't a good excuse. At least some of us have learned from past mistakes. Bush should too. Cronyism in politics should end now. Just because others have done horrible things, doesn't mean you, I, or Bush are excused if we do it too.
 

palehorse

Lifer
Dec 21, 2005
11,521
0
76
Originally posted by: dullard
Originally posted by: palehorse74
i'll repeat this one more time for the shortbus riders amongst us:
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.
Then I'll repeat this:
Originally posted by: dahunan
If a new holocaust started you would probably defend the person who started it saying that "Hitler did it too"
You are excusing Bush for doing something bad simply because others have done it too. That isn't a good excuse. At least some of us have learned from past mistakes. Bush should too. Cronyism in politics should end now. Just because others have done horrible things, doesn't mean you, I, or Bush are excused if we do it too.

damnit, some you REALLY need to take some reading comprehension classes...

My ONLY fvcking point was that Bush is certainly not the worst offender in Presidential history, no matter how many times you guys try and say he is. Repeating it does not make it so.

In no way do I personally justify the acts of cronyism or nepotism. My entire problem with you people is your insistence that he is worse than any President in history, as if he's taking it to some all-time low.

he's not. the fact is that MANY Presidents throughout our history were much worse; and that's my only point.

It's the constant sensationalism and tendency to exagerate everything that I have a problem with, not your objections to the acts themselves.
 

dullard

Elite Member
May 21, 2001
26,066
4,712
126
Originally posted by: palehorse74
damnit, some you REALLY need to take some reading comprehension classes...

My ONLY fvcking point was that Bush is certainly not the worst offender in Presidential history, no matter how many times you guys try and say he is. Repeating it does not make it so.

In no way do I personally justify the acts of cronyism or nepotism. My entire problem with you people is your insistence that he is worse than any President in history, as if he's taking it to some all-time low.

he's not. the fact is that MANY Presidents throughout our history were much worse; and that's my only point.

It's the constant sensationalism and tendency to exagerate everything that I have a problem with, not your objections to the acts themselves.
1) I can read just fine. You are saying that others have done it before, and others have done it more often than Bush. If you think I cannot comprehend, then what is incorrect with that part in bold? I think you are the one who isn't comprehending.

2) Notice that you don't have anything weighted. Suppose a president had 5 cronies in the year 1800 and a different president has 3 cronies in the year 2100. Which is worse? Honestly, probably the 3 cronies in 2100. Why? Two reasons. (1) The jobs are much more critical to the US and the world now and (2) the president in 2100 didn't learn from the mistakes in 1800.

3) Who specifically said he is the worst in history? I'm just curious. You are angry and replied to me using "your insistence that he is worse than any President in history". I know I certainly have never stated that. Strawman arguments are just ignorant arguments.

4) You seem to have difficulty with understanding what conclusions that your comments reach. You state that Bush isn't the worst at croynism and that "cronyism can be a positive thing". The only natural conclusion from those two comments is that you think Bush's cronyism is positive. That therfore opens the door for us to "object the acts themselves".
 

RightIsWrong

Diamond Member
Apr 29, 2005
5,649
0
0
PERIODIC TABLE'S NEWEST ELEMENT

A Nobel prize winning scientist has just announced the discovery of the
heaviest element yet known to science. The new element has been named
Bushcronium.

Bushcronium has one neutron, 12 assistant neutrons, 75 deputy neutrons,
and 224 assistant deputy neutrons, giving it an atomic mass of 311.
These 311 particles are held together by forces called morons, which are
surrounded by vast quantities of lepton-like particles called peons.

Since Bushcronium has no electrons, it is inert. However, it can be
detected, as it impedes every reaction with which it comes into contact.
A minute amount of Bushcronium causes one reaction to take over
4 days to complete when it would normally take less than a second.

Bushcronium has a normal half-life of multiples of 4 years; it does not
decay, but instead undergoes a reorganization in which a portion of the
assistant neutrons and deputy neutrons exchange places.

In fact, Bushcronium's mass will actually increase over time, since each
reorganization will cause more morons to become neutrons, forming
isodopes. This characteristic of moron-promotion leads some scientists
to believe that Bushcronium is formed whenever morons reach a certain
quantity in concentration. This hypothetical quantity is referred to as
"Critical Morass."

When catalyzed with money, Bushcronium activates Foxnewsium,
an element which radiates orders of magnitude, more energy, albeit
as incoherent noise, since it has 1/2 as many peons but twice as
many morons.

The symbol for Bushcronium is of course: "W".
 

Ldir

Platinum Member
Jul 23, 2003
2,184
0
0
Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
PERIODIC TABLE'S NEWEST ELEMENT

A Nobel prize winning scientist has just announced the discovery of the
heaviest element yet known to science. The new element has been named
Bushcronium.

Bushcronium has one neutron, 12 assistant neutrons, 75 deputy neutrons,
and 224 assistant deputy neutrons, giving it an atomic mass of 311.
These 311 particles are held together by forces called morons, which are
surrounded by vast quantities of lepton-like particles called peons.

Since Bushcronium has no electrons, it is inert. However, it can be
detected, as it impedes every reaction with which it comes into contact.
A minute amount of Bushcronium causes one reaction to take over
4 days to complete when it would normally take less than a second.

Bushcronium has a normal half-life of multiples of 4 years; it does not
decay, but instead undergoes a reorganization in which a portion of the
assistant neutrons and deputy neutrons exchange places.

In fact, Bushcronium's mass will actually increase over time, since each
reorganization will cause more morons to become neutrons, forming
isodopes. This characteristic of moron-promotion leads some scientists
to believe that Bushcronium is formed whenever morons reach a certain
quantity in concentration. This hypothetical quantity is referred to as
"Critical Morass."

When catalyzed with money, Bushcronium activates Foxnewsium,
an element which radiates orders of magnitude, more energy, albeit
as incoherent noise, since it has 1/2 as many peons but twice as
many morons.

The symbol for Bushcronium is of course: "W".

:laugh:
 

WHAMPOM

Diamond Member
Feb 28, 2006
7,628
183
106
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...
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.

Bush perfected it. He is perfect at finding the most incompetent for the job. OH! YES! Toadies, yesmen, and sycophants. "George , you the smartest man we know!":lips::moon:
 

Harvey

Administrator<br>Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
35,059
73
91
Originally posted by: palehorse74
ok, so let me get this straight... cronyism is a new thing? It's a "Bush thing"?!

ummm, no.
What's your point? The fact that it's happened doesn't justify it continuing, but there are some serious distinctions to be drawn. It would be wrong for any President to give jobs to others based simply on personal familiarity and friendship, but assuming a President is competent (which does NOT apply to Bush-lite) there's nothing wrong with relying on others with known, established and tested abilities.

The problem with this administration is that Bush, himself, is totally incompetent for the job, and far too many of those he's appointed have proven themselves to be at least as lame, greedy and worse. The result has been chaos, waste, corruption and deaths everywhere from FEMA during Katrina to Halliburton in Iraq to the deaths of thousands of U.S. troops and tens of thousands more seriously wounded due to their inept planning and execution of a war based on lies and deception. The sad story goes on and on, from the CIA to DOD to EPA to the FDA. Pick an agency, and you'll have your choice of inept "cronies" controlling their failures during this dismal adminstration's time in office. :|
 

OrByte

Diamond Member
Jul 21, 2000
9,303
144
106
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.
wow.... is this what they teach in the intelligence community these days? yikes...

apologist for the masses 101.
This talking point should have never left the starting gate...
 

kage69

Lifer
Jul 17, 2003
31,448
47,828
136
ok, so let me get this straight... cronyism is a new thing? It's a "Bush thing"?!

ummm, no.


You didn't get it straight. You should have followed my previous advice; this thread really makes you sound like a dim-witted pundit.


Care to take a shot at real criticisms of the Bush Admin? We'd all just loooove to hear you try to straighten out some choice comments from Richard Clarke. :)



 

Pens1566

Lifer
Oct 11, 2005
13,812
11,458
136
Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
PERIODIC TABLE'S NEWEST ELEMENT

A Nobel prize winning scientist has just announced the discovery of the
heaviest element yet known to science. The new element has been named
Bushcronium.

Bushcronium has one neutron, 12 assistant neutrons, 75 deputy neutrons,
and 224 assistant deputy neutrons, giving it an atomic mass of 311.
These 311 particles are held together by forces called morons, which are
surrounded by vast quantities of lepton-like particles called peons.

Since Bushcronium has no electrons, it is inert. However, it can be
detected, as it impedes every reaction with which it comes into contact.
A minute amount of Bushcronium causes one reaction to take over
4 days to complete when it would normally take less than a second.

Bushcronium has a normal half-life of multiples of 4 years; it does not
decay, but instead undergoes a reorganization in which a portion of the
assistant neutrons and deputy neutrons exchange places.

In fact, Bushcronium's mass will actually increase over time, since each
reorganization will cause more morons to become neutrons, forming
isodopes. This characteristic of moron-promotion leads some scientists
to believe that Bushcronium is formed whenever morons reach a certain
quantity in concentration. This hypothetical quantity is referred to as
"Critical Morass."

When catalyzed with money, Bushcronium activates Foxnewsium,
an element which radiates orders of magnitude, more energy, albeit
as incoherent noise, since it has 1/2 as many peons but twice as
many morons.

The symbol for Bushcronium is of course: "W".

:beer: