The language used to describe this intrabranch tension borrows heavily from that of warfare, calling to mind macho images of conquest and surrender, victor and vanquished. Whipped up by the antibureaucracy rhetoric of recent presidential campaigns, most newly appointed appointees carry this warfare mentality into office with them: "many Washington denizens believe that either conquest or capture is almost inevitable. For example, one Heritage Foundation writer maintains that 'recurring, prolonged warfare doesn't go on-one side wins or the other gets captured"' (ibid., 248-49).
|
The conquest approach is, perhaps, best embodied in Richard Nixon, who
|
 | | warned his cabinet against becoming captives of the career bureaucracy: ". . . We can't depend on people who believe in another philosophy of government to give us their undivided loyalty or their best work. . . . If we don't get rid of these people, they will either sabotage us from within, or they'll just sit back on their well-paid asses and wait for the next election to bring back their old bosses." (Maranto, 1993, 1)
|
Theorists of this school seem to have an approach that is angry and personal as much as political. Butler, for example, comments that "The bureaucratic entrepreneur will not be content merely to block administration proposals; he wishes to impose his policy agenda on an unwary administration" (Butler et al. 1984, 492). Conquest is the goal when the White House chooses persons to head an agency who are fundamentally opposed to the mission of that agency. Their assignment is to serve as internal change agents, to bore from within. This was seen most clearly in the Reagan political appointees who: "'carried the campaign into office,' held career executives at arm's length, viewed any dissenting career advice as a sign of disloyalty, and in effect created a self-fulfilling prophecy in respect to their negative views on government and bureaucracy" (Lorentzen 1984, 8).
|
There is a broader politicizing trend inherent in the conquest mentality. It acts to the detriment of the larger public service and on both sides of the executive equation.
|
| | Relations between political and career executives have become increasingly blurred as political levels have become bureaucratized and presidents have tried to gain controlespecially in the higher career ranks and without the political orientation provided by old-style party ties. Yet this
|
|
