Why Bush's Burrowing Appointees Are Bad, Despite What Slate Says

Cross posted at the home base!

"Burrowing" is the term of art for political appointees digging their way into the federal bureaucracy as permanent civil servants after their administration is gone. As Bush's horror show is coming to a close, he keeps trying to take a few more swipes at the country, like Jason jumping through the plate glass window with his machete one more time. In addition to Bush's executive attacks on environment regulation and weakening consumer and other protections, there is real fear at the vast cohort of Bush's incompetent, crony appointees becoming permanent Washington fixtures. And so of course it was just a matter of time before some enterprising contrarian over at Slate decides to make the opposite case:

Senate Democrats called for a halt to the practice. Bloggers such as Matthew Yglesias (semi-seriously) suggested that "we'll have the top layer of the civil service filled with industry shills," while those at TPMMuckraker vowed to "see what we can find out." Their concern is that civil-service protections, ostensibly designed to insulate the bureaucracy from political influence, will instead safeguard the political appointees of a deeply unpopular lame-duck administration.

It's a valid concern--but in this case, it's misplaced. President-elect Barack Obama will find it easier to replace the Oval Office draperies than to replace officials who supposedly work for him. What the executive branch needs is more patronage, not less.

Now, I love a good Slate article. Especially when the contrarian point is right. Even when it's off, it's always a good ride. But I have to say, this article seems to be making an argument against itself. Or maybe it isn't arguing the point it thinks it is. Either way, it's confusing. There is a condensed, informed history of the civil service, the Pendleton act which created it, and how it has become such a stubborn institution. Then we get the thesis that the calcified civil service is the problem, rather than feckless, ideological political appointees -- "In Praise of Patronage," as it's summed up in the article's title.

But this misses point of the left's rightful criticism of this round of burrowing. Sure, Obama's "change" would be more easily accomplished if more of the civil service was open to his political appointees, i.e. if he had more "patronage" at his disposal. But that doesn't mean patronage is a good idea. Nor is it relevant to the very real problem of Bush-era burrowing, as the thought of those political barnacles sealing themselves into the civil service is truly terrifying -- precisely because of the civil service institutional inertia outlined in the article. Bush's sole overarching administrative signature is utter incompetence on every level, sometimes driven by ideology, sometimes sheer mediocrity. Now some of that incompetence is building itself into our government. And so Slate's theory of patronage is, in this case, overwhelmed by its own example. You can't make a case against the crusty civil service and not worry about the layer of crust Bush is leaving behind.

Comments

[FDRbyGodDemocrat]

The best way to deal with burrowed Bush loyalists is to gather them all into one department, say "The Department of Redundancy Department," and assign them to: absolutely nothing. Or something totally unimportant. Their job will be to not screw things up. Twenty years down the road, we give them a watch (provided they can tell time) and show them the door.

[Geovan]

Well, if Reagan can fire air traffic controllers for a propped up reason, then, in this time of war and financial disaster, we can certainly find some even better reasons to trash the trash.

[Kassandra]

"crust Bush is leaving behind."

And that will be ALL he's leaving behind.

[Nonamnesiac]

Although Bush's efforts to "burrow" some of his cronies into the civil service is despicable, it's not particularly worrisome if Obama's really wants to rid the government of these folk. The days (that never actually existed) of federal workers being protected until death regardless of competence are long gone. If Obama hires a really competent union-side employee to set these burrowed employees right, they will either be gone within six (6) months or will be performing a competent job in which they will have no power to push any idelogical agenda whatsoever.

And if Obama does hire a really competent union-side employee, s/he would make certain literally from day one that those "burrowed" hacks have no authority to set any idelogical agenda.

Federal workers are among the smartest, most productive, apolitical in function workers in the world. Despite the efforts of anti-union and right wingers to paint federal workers as lazy, unproductive bureaucrats, federal workers, with proper management would stop the burrowers dead in their tracks immediately.

There's a reason among Bush's last acts is an attempt to strip collective bargaining rights away from federal workers. That attempt has nothing to do with national security and is actually harmful to national security. It is because he couldn't force the federal bureaucracy to function as a branch of his lawless administration.

If Obama wants to fix this, it's simple. Whether he wants to is open to question.

[JessWonderin]

You make an interesting point . . . most Bush Hacks are placed in a position NEEDING Administration help to maneuver . . .

Nothing fails faster than a "manager" faced with an intelligent experienced workforce well aware that that "manager" is incompetent and no longer the daring of the Administration . . . the swift dead from below will neuter most and even the most ardent God Filled Regent Grad will either get another job or become one more unemployed Bushista hoping Palin doesn't run out of classmates if she wins . . .

[Nonamnesiac]

Even if Bush wasn't trying to slime in legions of his incompetent, anti-government comrades into civil service jobs right now in a dying gasp to control government departments, it is in Obama's interests to hire a union-side employee(s) to reverse the damage Bush, his followers and his policies have already caused throughout all of the Departments. Obama really needs someone knowledgeable in how the bureaucracy works to get these ideologues out of authority positions immediately and legally remove them if they won't change and change their policies.

Even now in DHS and many other agencies Bushites are attempting to make minor moves to appear to Obama as if they want to negotiate and engage in collective bargaining and pro-public activity while they slam the doors on fairness, productivity, partnership and competence. They boldly announce bargaining initiatives while they direct their loyal underlings to dictate the results of the bargaining.

As bad as burrowing is, remember, he's had 8 years to burrow and many of the Agencies and Departments have already been seized by anti-worker, anti-public, anti-government ideologues. They must be either changed to functional, apolitical employees or thrown out on their corrupt butts.

[Oonagh]

Don't you just love how these people said "country first".... They need a lesson to understand what "country first" actually means...

[vietveter]

It is a plan of attack,

Country first...................... the rest of the world later

[jan4insight]

All those people crowing about "patronage" and how we have tob e bipartisan, etc. etc. - didn't they ever realize that you can't be "bipartisan" with a party (GOP) that wants all the power for themselves? It's been known for years that the Repub's #1 goal was a "permanent politcal hegemony" a la Karl Rove. What's bipartisan about that? We need to get rid of the whole stinkin' lot of them, and let the Repub party dwindle into the irrelevance it merits - after an appropriate round on presecutions and accountability.

[kimk3]

Hopefully, if the gophers are as poisonous as they're meant to be, the new administration will give those gophers no meaningful work and disinvite them to any important meetings and generally freeze them out so they can't do any damage. They'll probably get discouraged because of the low salaries (which the Republicans have been cutting salaries so as to discourage good people from civil service jobs anyways) and go into the private sector.

[mlaiuppa]

They won't be there forever. Even in civil service, there is a process to remove the incompetent. Those that are embedding themselves better do an outstanding job, as they will all have targets on their backs, and there will be someone up the foodchain documenting every misstep.

[Kassandra]

Yeah, but Harry Reid isn't worried about it, so...............