Laexile wrote:

dajafi wrote:It never did before, jeff. Under any president, of either party. Reagan and Bill Clinton probably did more to politicize the bureaucracy than any of their predecessors (and efforts such as this were probably inevitable to some extent as the executive got stronger and stronger relative to the other branches), but they never approached what Rove and Cheney tried to do.

I'm pretty confident that both Obama and McCain won't continue this trend of politicizing the administration of federal governance; their seeming disinclination toward that sort of thing is arguably the biggest reason I hoped they'd both get nominated. (Hillary and Giuliani, both paranoiac loyalty fetishists, unquestionably would have been the worst.)

I've heard both of them mentioned for attorney general, although I think Clinton would be a longshot to take it. So you may get exactly what you're mentioning here.

The Bush administration has made a big deal of how Clinton fired all of Bush Sr's prosecutors and replaced them prosecutors with ideologies similar to his own. Wouldn't you expect a President Obama to fire everyone in the Justice Department that was hired by President Bush and replace them with people more fitting with his view? Obama has made a big deal about wanting to get rid of judiciary with a conservative view and how they need judges who are going to be in favor of the Democratic interpretation of issues.

The Democrats believe what has gone down in Guantanamo is torture. The people in the Bush justice department don't. If Obama wants to try people for torture he's not going to want someone hired by Bush who is unsympathetic to his position.

LaEx sums up my point better than I do. I will add some parts that he may not agree with though:

1. I'm not sure just how much I buy that the civil servant offices were apolitical or non-partisan back in the day. I think that's one of the nostalgic views of things.

2. However, even if I stipulate that it worked the way you say it did, I think your point about the fact that Reagan and Clinton and worst of all Bush made political hirings indicates that we're in a new world.

Jeff, I agree with both points. Civil services used to be all cronyism until Arthur got the Pendleton Civil Service Reform Act passed in 1883. I don't know how much that changed in the next 100 years. I think it is a new world. I don't think we're going to go backwards.

The political appointees--the guys in the office of the AG--are always turned over at the beginning of every administration. As are, usually, the 90-odd US Attorneys. But there are also career staff, both in the DoJ in DC and the various offices around the country. I'm not saying that political considerations never played a part in their hiring, but basically they had to be professionally qualified first and foremost. Harvard/Yale Law grads generally were preferable to Regent University Law grads because Harvard and Yale are considered better schools. (Messrs Thomas, Bork, Alito and others also would suggest that Ivy Leaguers aren't uniformly Amurka-hating libburls.)

And the US Attorneys, once appointed at the start of each president's tenure, generally were left alone to do their jobs rather than fired in mid-term because they wouldn't pursue investigations designed to help Republicans win elections. The federal government isn't supposed to work as an arm of the RNC. The difference of the Bush DoJ (and not just the DoJ) was that every appointee or hire was "political."

A foundational premise of the presidency before George W. Bush was that the president represented the entire country, whether they voted for him or not, and that the government, acting as the government, served the entire country with absolute indifference to political considerations. This might have been an ideal unreachable in reality, but it was a good ideal to strive toward--and one we sort of need to have faith in our shared institutions even when they aren't run by Our Side. Otherwise (and yes this is a simplification), why even pay taxes?

I'd add that nobody has come forward, at least that I've seen, to suggest that the politicization of the government under Bush *wasn't* something new. My sense is that this happened to a vastly smaller extent under Reagan and Clinton, but that doesn't excuse it, right?

dajafi, I don't disagree with the way it should be. But things have changed. The Bush administration would argue that what they did was a response to what Clinton did. It was just an escalation. If Obama gets elected the situation will likely get worse. Democrats are very angry and won't settle less than having the last eight years reversed. Why should they care about Republicans? Republicans didn't care about them and ignored them for eight years.

I'm not sure how a McCain Presidency would play out. Clinton was a response to Reagan/Bush and Bush was a response to Clinton. Since McCain is a Republican he won't be expected to completely overturn the last eight years. The right wing of the GOP will call for McCain to continue this sort of politicizing. On the one hand, McCain has indicated he supports a conservative interpretation of the Constitution. On the other, he could thumb his nose to the right wing of the party, just as he's done in the past.

Laexile wrote:dajafi, I don't disagree with the way it should be. But things have changed. The Bush administration would argue that what they did was a response to what Clinton did.

Does the argument have any merit? If it doesn't, it means something has changed.

I mean it's cool and all to be cynical like Jeffs2f, who really doesn't know anything about this, but assumes they're all corrupt. And sure, escalation is inevitable too.

But that means the next step may very well be firing a bunch of military brass and bringing in your own guys.

I take a different view. Bush isn't like Clinton only more so, Bush is like Chavez, using a the veneer of ideology to serve his own purposes.

Lots of informed conservatives at this point feel betrayed by Bush for just that reason. It started with the Harriet Myers appointment, and while the conservatives scored an important victory over the Bushies, Bush just came right back with more of the same.

Laexile wrote:The Bush administration has made a big deal of how Clinton fired all of Bush Sr's prosecutors and replaced them prosecutors with ideologies similar to his own. Wouldn't you expect a President Obama to fire everyone in the Justice Department that was hired by President Bush and replace them with people more fitting with his view? Obama has made a big deal about wanting to get rid of judiciary with a conservative view and how they need judges who are going to be in favor of the Democratic interpretation of issues.

.

I sure hope so. Veteran attorneys in the Justice Dept were replaced with freshly minted law degrees from religious oriented institutions. In general, you'd like to think the law was the law and that prosecutors were upholding the law, not manufacturing circumstances and doing political work. And if the president was abusing his office and trying to manipulate, the attorneys would push back and or go to the courts if necessary. Not just find angles to support the president's objectives.

I don't care if a judge or attorney is Rep or Dem, if they are honest, fair-minded, and can separate their own values from the law.

TenuredVulture wrote:I take a different view. Bush isn't like Clinton only more so, Bush is like Chavez, using a the veneer of ideology to serve his own purposes.

Thanks, Paul. Exactly. It's Stalinism without the mass murder: staffing the bureaucracy with personal loyalists to strengthen the leader's hold on power and more closely ensure that the state is essentially an instrument of the leader's will. This isn't good news whether the leader has an R or a D after his name--and I'd like to think that if Obama tried anything like that, Democrats wouldn't stand for it. I can promise you I wouldn't.

And thanks PtK--you've got it dead right too. There are countless Republicans, most of whose names we'll never know, who serve the public honorably. The fired US Attorneys were Republicans who happened to put public service over partisan advantage--which used to be the expectation.

At some point, doesn't there have to be an end to politics? Our foreign policy already has been way too politicized over the last ten years. That hasn't worked out well for us, as you might have noticed. If domestic manifestations of the government follow in the same direction, the country as we know it isn't sustainable.

dajafi wrote:

TenuredVulture wrote:I take a different view. Bush isn't like Clinton only more so, Bush is like Chavez, using a the veneer of ideology to serve his own purposes.

Thanks, Paul. Exactly. It's Stalinism without the mass murder: staffing the bureaucracy with personal loyalists to strengthen the leader's hold on power and more closely ensure that the state is essentially an instrument of the leader's will. This isn't good news whether the leader has an R or a D after his name--and I'd like to think that if Obama tried anything like that, Democrats wouldn't stand for it. I can promise you I wouldn't.

And thanks PtK--you've got it dead right too. There are countless Republicans, most of whose names we'll never know, who serve the public honorably. The fired US Attorneys were Republicans who happened to put public service over partisan advantage--which used to be the expectation.

At some point, doesn't there have to be an end to politics? Our foreign policy already has been way too politicized over the last ten years. That hasn't worked out well for us, as you might have noticed. If domestic manifestations of the government follow in the same direction, the country as we know it isn't sustainable.

First, let's be clear, I loathe Bush for many of the reasons stated here. Packing the government with loyalists is bad.

My issue is that if a Dem did that same thing, and many would, you won't vote against them, because, after all, as long as they're pushing your agenda, that's all that matters. You're on record saying you would vote for Hillary over McCain if NY was in play even knowing she'd do what Bush did with respect to valuing loyalty.

jeff2sf wrote:

dajafi wrote:

TenuredVulture wrote:I take a different view. Bush isn't like Clinton only more so, Bush is like Chavez, using a the veneer of ideology to serve his own purposes.

Thanks, Paul. Exactly. It's Stalinism without the mass murder: staffing the bureaucracy with personal loyalists to strengthen the leader's hold on power and more closely ensure that the state is essentially an instrument of the leader's will. This isn't good news whether the leader has an R or a D after his name--and I'd like to think that if Obama tried anything like that, Democrats wouldn't stand for it. I can promise you I wouldn't.

And thanks PtK--you've got it dead right too. There are countless Republicans, most of whose names we'll never know, who serve the public honorably. The fired US Attorneys were Republicans who happened to put public service over partisan advantage--which used to be the expectation.

At some point, doesn't there have to be an end to politics? Our foreign policy already has been way too politicized over the last ten years. That hasn't worked out well for us, as you might have noticed. If domestic manifestations of the government follow in the same direction, the country as we know it isn't sustainable.

First, let's be clear, I loathe Bush for many of the reasons stated here. Packing the government with loyalists is bad.

My issue is that if a Dem did that same thing, and many would, you won't vote against them, because, after all, as long as they're pushing your agenda, that's all that matters. You're on record saying you would vote for Hillary over McCain if NY was in play even knowing she'd do what Bush did with respect to valuing loyalty.

Okay, jeff. Ya got me...

Seriously, what's the point of this? Do you feel better?

She has no point. She often has no point. It's part of her charm.

jerseyhoya wrote:She has no point. She often has no point. It's part of her charm.

Is this a Jerry Manuel talking about Reyes "she"?

It's Stalinism without the Stalinism.

Seriously, you step out of the internet for a little while, step back in, and you see some really ridiculous hyperbole.

dajafi wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:She has no point. She often has no point. It's part of her charm.

Is this a Jerry Manuel talking about Reyes "she"?

That and I watched A Few Good Men on Sunday

Not at all, my man. The thing is, we largely agree on policy, I'm just less attached to most policies than you are. I also resent the implication, by you and Paul, that the Democrats are essentially "more good" than the Republicans.

The Reps are just currently more reprehensible because they had the power most recently. This all started because I pushed back against you when you made the assertion that Bush is wholly different from the way most Dems would work. The world is too partisan - you of all people should know this.

VoxOrion wrote:It's Stalinism without the Stalinism.

Seriously, you step out of the internet for a little while, step back in, and you see some really ridiculous hyperbole.

The pogroms are coming, Vox. Don't say you weren't warned.

jerseyhoya wrote:

VoxOrion wrote:It's Stalinism without the Stalinism.

Seriously, you step out of the internet for a little while, step back in, and you see some really ridiculous hyperbole.

The pogroms are coming, Vox. Don't say you weren't warned.

I'm just glad Bush is working so hard to steer us away from free enterprise.

jeff2sf wrote:Not at all, my man. The thing is, we largely agree on policy, I'm just less attached to most policies than you are. I also resent the implication, by you and Paul, that the Democrats are essentially "more good" than the Republicans.

The Reps are just currently more reprehensible because they had the power most recently. This all started because I pushed back against you when you made the assertion that Bush is wholly different from the way most Dems would work. The world is too partisan - you of all people should know this.

So... not sure I get it. I'm not talking about Republicans and Democrats. I'm talking about Bush, and the people who operate his administration. You'll recall that my whole problem with Clinton was that I saw way too much of Bush's character--the valuing of loyalty over competence, the tendency to view everything through the prism of politics--in her.

I'm having trouble getting all that worked up about this campaign precisely because McCain doesn't bother me nearly as much as Bush. The differences on policy grounds have me hoping the Democrats win, but I neither see Obama as a savior nor McCain as a real threat to the Constitution, so it feels like the stakes are lower to me.

Right, and my point was... Bush is bad, it sucks what he did, but you know, in this partisan world we now live in, I don't see it getting better. I went a step further and said the good old days may not have been as good as you remember them (and at that point, I was labelled clueless by TV).

Anyway, I'm heartened by your position on the election. The stakes are lower and yet America really can't lose, so that's great. I loved the cover article in the Economist a few weeks ago - America at its finest. I'm voting Obama because as cynical as I apparently am about politicians inherent goodness, I have some belief that Obama might be different. Call me a romantic.

VoxOrion wrote:It's Stalinism without the Stalinism.

Seriously, you step out of the internet for a little while, step back in, and you see some really ridiculous hyperbole.

Yeah, because I'm saying exactly that Bush is a Bolshevik mass murderer. Not that his (really Rove's) approach to consolidating power is to use the bureaucracy as a political tool. Which was what Stalin did in winning his power struggle.

But, as you know, I'm just a wild-eyed Bush/America-hating libburl who doesn't actually think things through or know anything I'm talking about.

dajafi wrote:

VoxOrion wrote:It's Stalinism without the Stalinism.

Seriously, you step out of the internet for a little while, step back in, and you see some really ridiculous hyperbole.

Yeah, because I'm saying exactly that Bush is a Bolshevik mass murderer. Not that his (really Rove's) approach to consolidating power is to use the bureaucracy as a political tool. Which was what Stalin did in winning his power struggle.

But, as you know, I'm just a wild-eyed Bush/America-hating libburl who doesn't actually think things through or know anything I'm talking about.

Dude, the comparison is awful and some part of you knows it. If there weren't so many moonbats making the comparison you'd have never made it yourself because you'd have been ashamed to.