Cronyism, Nepotism, and the Current President Bush

National Review ^ | 10/18/2005 | Adam Bellow

[curiosity]

According to a Wall Street Journal/NBC poll, 54 percent of Americans think President Bush values party loyalty and personal friendship over competence. The poll was prompted, as if you didn’t know, by Bush’s habit of appointing friends and retainers to major jobs in his administration. Some of these seem qualified enough: Condi Rice, Alberto Gonzales. Others seem more questionable, none more so than Michael Brown and Harriet Miers.
In one sense this is nothing new for Bush. From the start, his administration was marked by a web of family connections, and certain members of the press were quick to cry nepotism. But, perhaps coincidentally, since the ascendancy of Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid — himself the subject of a major nepotism expose in 2002 — such talk has softly guttered out. Now it’s back in a new form — allegations of cronyism.

Dubya & the Dynasty

Nepotism and cronyism appear to be different things, but from a practical and ethical standpoint, the distinction is virtually meaningless. Only the modern liberal fetish with “blood ties” makes these acts appear different in kind. Both offend our public creed of meritocracy, and both are best understood as forms of family patronage. Which is to say, they are two faces of the same dynastic strategy.

You cannot understand George W. Bush without an understanding of his family, and dynastic families in general. Indeed, it might be said that Bush’s familial approach to politics has been his greatest strength and greatest weakness — his Achilles heel. Like Bonaparte, the same dynastic habits that brought him to power may bring him down again. They don't teach a course in patronage and nepotism at Harvard Business School — but they should. Instead they pretend that it doesn't exist. That does us all a disservice.

Dynastic families are not like yours and mine (unless your name is Bush or Kennedy). They are self-conscious, multigenerational enterprises displaying strong collective discipline and an innate, untutored grasp of certain perennial modes and orders that advance the family’s interest. All the great dynastic families in history have used these methods, though in our post-dynastic age they are most visibly preserved by the mafia. Indeed, those who compare the Bushes to the Corleone family are not far off the mark. Through a tangled web of marriage, adoption, instrumental friendship, and godparenthood, the typical mafia don creates a series of concentric rings around his family that extends his power deep into the countryside. Likewise, the Bushes have created an enormous social network based on their family. Like other large successful clans they prefer their own company and that of their relatives, friends, and retainers. Such families typically have their own compounds where they gather apart from the rest of society, and when someone useful swims into their view they adopt him as part of the family. This was the way the Bushes dealt with Prince Bandar of Saudi Arabia, whom they christened "Bandar Bush."

In short, dynastic families are nothing but socially sanctioned mafias based on nepotism and various forms of patronage. Now that we have a dynastic family in office, it is inevitable that this will be exposed to public view. 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.)

Judgment Problem

In all such cases, merit, and patronage were deeply intertwined, since (as I argue in my book on the subject) the informal and unwritten "rules of nepotism" require that patronage be bestowed with discretion on those who will not bring discredit on the patron. The same applies today in modern bureaucratic settings, though considerably modified by the meritocratic values of our technocratic age.

Which brings us to the Bushes. People have been trying to figure out what kind of bubble the Bushes live in for a long time. But it is not the cocoon of wealth that insulates them from reality and explains their frequent missteps and tone-deaf remarks, but that of family itself. The problem for W is that the ethic of friendship and loyalty that the Bushes cultivate and that brought him to power is threatening now to bring him down. He has made the common dynastic mistake of confusing loyalty and merit; in his eyes, the merit of people like Michael Brown and Harriet Miers consists in their being his friends. They are loyal to him, and their loyalty must be rewarded. Thus in Bush, the very loyalty that was a private virtue has become a public vice. His greatest failing is his inability to hold people accountable for their errors. Because they are his creatures, he seems unable to disown them or even to see their faults. This is an inexcusable failing in a democratic leader. As the Machiavellian FDR would be the first to acknowledge, aristocratic virtues have no place in the modern executive. For while Americans do love a prince, they want nothing to do with a king.

[nopardons]

Your opinion is well reasoned, plausible, and the correct one.

[jwalsh07]

Why, thank you Ma'am.

[curiosity]

How can I misrepresent my opinion?

Your opinion is based upon a misrepresentation of the anlogoy.

That's correct and my opinion stands, you're opinion not withstanding.

Nope. Your opinion has no leg to stand on. It is absolutely unsupported by the facts.

The only thing clear from the text is that Bellow analogizes the mafia and the Bush family. Why he does that is a matter of opinion.

Wrong. He makes very clear what similarities he believes the Bush family and the Mafia share. Criminality is not one of them. This is a matter of fact, not opinion, as the text of the article clearly demonstrates. I can see, however, that you have no trouble holding an opinion that is contrary to fact. That's your problem, not mine.

[bray]

Well said except your wasting your time with these Bushaters. Why waste our time with such negativism??

Pray for W and Our Victorious Troops

[nopardons]

Twas my pleasure Sir.

[nopardons]

Look, let's cut out the garbage and just call a spade a spade. You are wrong, you are not happy being called on being wrong,and it is you who are misrepresenting what is so clear to the rest of us.

And as far as having "no leg to stand on", regarding one's opinion, that would be you and you alone. It is patently unsupportable to claim that the mention of the Mafia is devoid of any and all connection to crime, in any analogy. The Mafia isn't known for anything other than CRIME.

If the author of this spurious, almost libelous hit piece had wanted to, he could have used any number of other analogies, vis-a-vis the Bush family and its networking.

[curiosity]

Nopardons writes:

It is NOT "clear from the text", that the only similarities between the Mafia and the Bush family is that both create a "social network" based on family.

Okay. Let's see if your claim is true. Everything Bellows writes about the mafia is in the follwing paragraph:

Dynastic families are not like yours and mine (unless your name is Bush or Kennedy). They are self-conscious, multigenerational enterprises displaying strong collective discipline and an innate, untutored grasp of certain perennial modes and orders that advance the family’s interest. All the great dynastic families in history have used these methods, though in our post-dynastic age they are most visibly preserved by the mafia. Indeed, those who compare the Bushes to the Corleone family are not far off the mark. Through a tangled web of marriage, adoption, instrumental friendship, and godparenthood, the typical mafia don creates a series of concentric rings around his family that extends his power deep into the countryside. Likewise, the Bushes have created an enormous social network based on their family. Like other large successful clans they prefer their own company and that of their relatives, friends, and retainers.

As far as I can see, the only similarities between the Mafia and non-criminal dynastic families that Bellow highlights are the following:

1) "Strong collective discipline"

2)"An innate, untutored grasp of certain perennial modes and orders that advance the family’s interest"

3) "An enormous social network based on their family"

I see no other similarities mentioned, not a even a hint of criminality. Please show me in the above paragraph where you see any implication that criminality is a similiarty. If you cannot, then how can you possibly justify your assertion that, "The implication is much deeper than that?".

Nopardons writes: If it [the implication] were less than that, something other than the use of the Mafia could and should have been used.

Why? If political dynasties share many of the same non-criminal characteristics as the mafia, what's wrong with using that analogy? The mafia analogy is particularly apt when there are few other types of family-based organizations with the same prominence in popular culture that also share these characteristics.

Nopardons writes:

If you want to claim that it has many of the same aspects of dynastic businesses, or even political dynastic families ( which are a rarity in American politics ), then you might as well state that the Mafia and the every college fraternity are the same, because both are secret societies which only admit males as members.

. In fact, I agree, the mafia and fraternities share similarities. They're not "the same," but that's not the point. No one ever claimed dynastic businesses or political families are "the same" as the mafia, only that they share certain similarities.

Finally, Nopardons writes:

the Mafia is not know for anything besides crime!

Nonsense. There are plenty of other things the mafia are known for, including their family-based organizational structure and their reliance on vast informal networks based on patronage and trust.

Without these characteristics, the mafia would not be romantisized in popular culture the way they have been. Ordinary thugs don't make for interesting drama.

[curiosity]

It is patently unsupportable to claim that the mention of the Mafia is devoid of any and all connection to crime, in any analogy.

Nonsense. An anology does not imply that both objects share every characteristic. It only implies that they share SOME characteristics. In this case the analgoy focuses on shared characteristics other than crime.

The Mafia isn't known for anything other than CRIME.

Hogwash. See my previous posts for at least two things other than crime that the mafia are (the word is plural, BTW) known for.

[curiosity]

he could have used any number of other analogies, vis-a-vis the Bush family and its networking.

He did, actually: the Kennedy's as well as business dynasties. Neither, however, has as prominent a place in popular culture as the mafia, so it makes perfect sense to use the mafia as well.

[DBeers]

Is this the DU forum or are you a DU troll?

[jwalsh07]

Ordinary thugs don't make for interesting drama.

You watch too much TV curiosity, the mafia for the most part was and is exactly that, ordinary thugs.

[Zechariah11]

Cheering on Sandra Day O'Connor II?

[DBeers]

Look at the source. It's not by a Dem, and it's in a conservative magazine.

You are the source... Like the counter clerk at a bagel shop -you serve poop on toast and when you get complaints you point to the sign and say this is a bagel shop -whoopee!!! LOL -you served the poop on a shingle...

[nopardons]

One of my grandmother's sayings really fits you!

THERE ARE NONE SO BLIND, AS THOSE WHO WILL NOT SEE.

When it comes to the Mafia, there is no reason whatsoever, NONE, to even mention the word "crime"; it is the ONLY thing that the Mafia is known for. Crime is synonymous and analogous to the very word MAFIA! It is always there...sub rosa, hiding just below the surface. It's a word that smacks you in the face, like a seven day old smelly, cold, wet fish.

And whilst we're at it, let's also look at the last word of that paragraph you keep CCPing from this article; "retainers". RETAINERS? For crying out loud, what an unctuous, anachronistic, supercilious word to use, in this day and age!

Harry Truman was a pettifogging little nobody and a disaster /failure in business. Yet, he was part and parcel of what was once called a sort of "mafia". Clinton was and is absolutely part of the "Dixie Mafia" and that is absolutely correct...criminality implied on factual evidence. The Kennedys were, up to their collective eyeballs, in thrall ( another rather anachronistic word, but one which actually fits; unlike the author's ridiculous use of the word "retainer"! )of the for real, actual Mafia.

When it comes right down to it, curiosity, you really need to get yourself a good dictionary, because you are out of your depth and I'm assuming that English is your mother tongue, even though you appear to be somewhat unfamiliar with some of it. And you'll never win this argument, precisely because of your unfamiliarity with some English words and the uses the author made of them.

Here's a simple test..........What is the FIRST thing that everyone immediately thinks of, when the word Mafia is said/written? Answer: CRIME!

College fraternities and eating societies and fraternal organizations such as the Masons and the Elks and the Rotary would ALL have been far better analogies, than the Mafia. Nary a one of those organizations immediately bring to mind crime, as the use of the word Mafia does.

Have you ever read the little book "THE PREPPY HANDBOOK". that came out on the '80s? If not, do so! It is mostly just a funny book; however, it does accurately describe "networking", from preschool through adulthood, on how this kind of thing works and it isn't at all like the Mafia! Granted, the book is a wee bit out of date, but a lot of it still holds true. And for someone, such as yourself, who isn't a member of the class that found this book to be a really funny poke at one's self, it will be instructive.

The Mafia, though it wasn't named, was romanticized in the 1930s, by Hollywood. There was NEVER anything but crime and criminality associated with it; not even when Puzzo wrote, many decades later, about the Corleones.

Your entire thesis/opinion is not valid. You just keep repeating yourself and ignoring about 90% of my entire posts and those of others. You answer no questions, you do not even attempt to refute what I have posted; but, you just dig your heels in and, in effect, post na na na and so's your old man. That just won't do.

This article and your posts boil down to Bushbashing and class warfare. The ONLY answer to that, is PIFFLE.

[DBeers]

There is nothing wrong with "cronyism" as you term it AND you are but parroting the latest liberal talking point -"Cronyism is not conservative" ... "Cronyism" is not liberal either or anything else -it is just "cronyism"...

I have determined you are a troll and prior to your imminent zotting I request you attempt to outline what specifically is not conservative about our great President's persistent "cronyism"...

[curiosity]

Conservatives, at least of the American stripe, have traditionally valued merit. Appointing a close associate despite a lack of merit (which is how I define cronyism) violates this principle.

[curiosity]

Wow. I've never counted so many unsubstantiated personal attacks in a single post. Good job.

[dirtboy]

Mike Brown, Harriet Meiers. 'nuff said.

'nuff said, eh?

Mike Brown was so incompetent that FEMA handled FOUR major hurricanes last year - each of which caused more damage than any hurricane during the Clinton Administration. From what we see now, the main problem in NOLA was from the gross incompetence at the state and local level.

Miers may or may not pan out. But you're as quick to jump on inneundo as the MSM was during Katrina.

[nopardons]

The word is singular...ergo IS. Though a many headed hydra, the Mafia, per se, is but one organization.

As to the rest of your post, you're still just repeating the same old same old and it won't wash.

[CBart95]

Brace to your hearts content.
Oh gullible one.
We will be here to cheer you up when it all comes asunder.
Then, we'll "prep" you for your next purchase:
The bridge named after Brooklyn.