The President's Call: Executive Leadership From FDR to George Bush (70 page)

BOOK: The President's Call: Executive Leadership From FDR to George Bush
13.41Mb size Format: txt, pdf, ePub
 
Page 223
One reason for the poor relations between the Bush appointees and careerists was suggested by one high-level careerist: "The relationship with political appointees under Bush was much worse than under Reagan. The Bush people were smarter, and so they knew how to stop things when the president wanted them stopped. They knew the system better . . . and so they were able to get [Bush's] dirty work done" (Riccucci 1995, 225).
Nixon's and Carter's appointments drew praise from some careerists who noted a subsequent decline. Said one, in remarking that Bush's people were better than Reagan's,
They are similar to Nixon's people in terms of qualifications, degrees, and experience. DOD is back to being run by military people, there are fewer politicals there now. The line between agencies that have traditionally been political (HUD, HHS, GSA) and those that haven't (EPA, DOD) was blurred by Reagan 1. DOD and EPA have been of high quality in Bush. The technical needs predominate, there is a limited number of PASs, NSESs and Schedule Cs.
Many PASs talked of and were disdainful of the party hacks who had discredited the Reagan administrations. This was also reflected in conversations with careerists, whose long-term orientation affords them an understanding of the larger issues of workforce morale. As Carol Bonosaro, executive director of the Senior Executive Association, observed,
The difference between George Bush and Ronald Reagan is probably, as the president [Bush] would say, "the ethics thing." Early on, George Bush set high standards and communicated it very well to his appointees. Ronald Reagan's scandals (HUD, EPA) were very demoralizing to people in the SES "career core." The sense that the government was being run by a bunch of crooks made it difficult, aside from having to deal with them. The public image of the public service was damaged and with it the career service was [painted] with the same brush in the public eye.
Moss outlined the difference between the Democratic and Republican parties in their approach to government, as embodied in their leaders: Carter believed government had a role to play in almost every dimension of American life. Reagan believed government's role should be minimized. George Bush was only slightly behind Reagan's lead. Their appointees reflected their philosophy. Moss drew the contrast with Jimmy Carter's appointments, which were of
 
Page 224
good people who were interested in improving innovative programs, as opposed to the Reagan people who were opposed to the mission of their agency or who wanted to deregulate the IRCs. Reagan chose "Reagan Democrats," neoconservatives, for non-Republican IRC slots. This basis for selection carried over to lesser-known but important agencies, such as NLRB, which makes key labor decisions. . . . The Reagan appointees shifted the whole basis of labor law through the appeal process.
Moss felt that the quality of Bush appointees was not up to that of the Carter administration and had deteriorated in the past twelve years of Republican leadership. "Aside from ambassadors, Bush's choices
may
be marginally better than Reagan's. There have been no Jim Wattses in Bush's term (those so far out of the mainstream of American thought as to be egregious). George Bush is less ideological, less overtly interested in making government appear to be working less efficiently."
He did not see any differences between Reagan and Bush regarding political-career relations, however. "The professionals are generally superior to their political overseers," he said.
Elliot Richardson commented on the differences between Reagan and Bush:
Generally, the Reaganites had a higher ratio of true believers. The right wingers never really believed Bush was one of them, despite his best efforts. . . . He nominated a lot of moderate Republicans, these were the early Bush people, pre-1990, so the loyalty litmus test brought in a different breed than the Reaganites.
George Bush had fewer ideologues. He didn't treat seriously enough the third- and fourth-level jobs [the deputy assistant secretaries]. Reagan looked at those jobs and chose the fourth-level person in the campaign (the advance person) for the job. It was often a mismatch of skillstoo many people in those jobs who were there due to patronage.
Moss noted that Bush talked more than Reagan did about appointing women and minorities, and he did, in fact, appoint women chiefs to many postsOPM, Social Security Administration, Internal Revenue Service, Federal Labor Relations Agency, National Institutes of Health, Federal Trade Commission, Labor, Commerce, Peace Corps, PPO, Small Business Administration, and Surgeon General. Also, "minorities have done better than in previous administrations. Hispanics and Indians less so than Blacks. They feel slighted somewhatonly now are Hispanics getting organized."
9

Other books

Harvard Square by André Aciman
Star Struck by Halpert, Paige
The Best Man to Trust by Kerry Connor
The World Is Flat by Thomas L. Friedman
The Wedding Night by Linda Needham
Heart and Soul by Shiloh Walker
The Cosmic Landscape by Leonard Susskind
Alice-Miranda on Vacation by Jacqueline Harvey