Where’s the evidence that career diplomats do any better than political hacks?
How would you measure that? Take somewhere that probably needs some ambassadorial skill - Lebanon. Clicking around on the biographies it seems like the US prefers to have professionals there. London is a reward for services rendered, it’s a sinecure, and nothing wrong with that.
That may be, but other important Ambassadors with real pull included John Adams, his son and grandson. I’d be less inclined to worry about whether the ambassadors were whatever you mean by “career diplomats” and more about whether they served any useful function.
…Why is there nothing wrong with that? As an American citizen, I do rather object to the use of public funds to hand out pointless favors to people who bribe the President, whether that’s in political backscratching, donations, or whatnot.
Opposition to a job should be proportional to its important. Harriet Meiers and the SCOTUS? Big job, big opposition. An ambassadorship to a friendly country of which we have little conflict with? Small job, small opposition. Or do you think one should debate with the same zeal the post of county dogcatcher in Podunk, IA compared with the next SCOTUS chief justice?
No, no. They’re Europeans. They watch it ironically. Her connection with The Bold and the Beautiful will lead them to consider her “successful and distinguished”; it will lead them to consider her curious and amusing.
It’s like an entire continent of hipsters!
I tend to agree with Shodan on this. Hungary may be in a precarious position, but it just isn’t of any real strategic interest to the US. No offense to the Magyars, but they’re maybe 3rd tier in terms of US interests, with 1st tier being the UK, Germany, France type countries.
Ambassadors do serve a “useful function,” it’s just not an exceptionally technical function. Ambassadors serve as the high-level attendant at meetings, talks and functions (for which they are provided extensive notes and briefings by the technical experts on the subject.) This may not seem important to you, but it’s important to basically everyone else. Send your technical officer to meet a Prime Minister, and you are going to offend the whole darn nation. Americans may be egalitarian and free wheelin’, but protocol is a big honking deal to most of the other diplomats we work with and we can’t just ignore it.
Beyond that, Ambassadors are the top authority in the office, which can’t be discounted. They are ultimately responsible for how the Embassy is run, keeping employees out of trouble, making sure everyone is hitting all their targets, and generally making sure everything is managed well.
It’s cushy, yes. But it is an actual job, even in “easy” countries.
You need someone to represent your country at stuff, even if it just a handshake and a smile. The VP can’t be everywhere
With the last two answers, it seems like Bell being unable to articulate ANY interest in Hungary (did she do any homework?) means a future diplomatic faux-pas for the Secy of State to deal with.
That is hardly new. McCain is generally furious over one thing or another.
When my company opened a branch office to serve a big client, they appointed a “managing director” because some executives at the big client were offended at having to deal with a mere branch manager.
You know a lot of jobs where complete amateurs do as well as experienced professionals?
You would hire a diplomat for the main role in a movie?
I guess that with this kind of appointments, the ambassador is to the diplomatic mission what the queen is to the British government. Obviously, someone else has to discuss the important stuff with local high-ranking officials.
NBC Nightly News ran the story tonight.
There are serious things, and then there are serious things. And even for the most serious of the serious things, Obama isn’t going to spend his day on the phone with Orban to discuss every detail. And he also will need someone experienced and cognisant to inform him about the ins and outs of the local situation. Ambassador isn’t a sinecure, even in the quietest and most friendly countries. In fact being a close ally means a lot of ties, agreement, treaties, common projects, exchange of information. And can an actor be trusted with highly sensitive information? With the knowledge of intelligence operations?
A hack can’t do this job, and someone has to do it. Such a person can only be ambassador in name, drinking champagne at events and doing some PR. There has to be someone else who actually carries out the duties of the job.
I might hire an ambassador to produce a movie. They are both drawing on leadership skills.
As others have said, being an Ambassador is mostly ceremonial job nowadays. It’s no longer a policy making position. Modern communications means all foreign policy decisions are made back in Washington and the Ambassador just has to deliver messages and make public appearances. And the embassy staff will handle all the routine paperwork as they always have.
So you have a prestigious job with no real power. It’s perfect for rewarding a political supporter. The Obama administration isn’t doing anything new here.
I recall reading that ambassadors quite frequently pay out of pocket without reimbursement for a lot of their entertainment and other expenses and that many ambassadorial positions essentially require the ambassador to be independently wealthy.
Yes, of course. But what this does is to devalue the status generally of US ambassadors. If I’m dealing with the British embassy, or the embassy of many other countries, I know the ambassador is a career diplomat with long experience - and if I’m a diplomat myself, or a foreign ministry official, that gives us a good shared background and understanding to work within, and a good deal of shared language. Whereas if I’d dealing with the US ambassador, I’ll have found out whether he is (a) a career diplomat, as I hope, or (b) a wealthy donor to a political campaign, in which case my ability to make much progress with him is in question.
IIRC the logic is often that with places like the UK, the bilateral ties are so strong and deep, the Ambassador is nigh irrelevant; thus those spots are often political appointees. I think the principle is usually that we send the hacks to places where they like us and a screwup won’t imperil anything.
I think McCain is a bit overheated, but I think Shodan is underestimating the sketchiness of that neighborhood. Eastern Europe is not an uncomplicated place.
I am pretty sure that when the ambassador is a political appointee, a suitably experienced Foreign Service officer is the second in command anyway.
But, Hungary does border Ukraine and if that falls into Russian orbit, it will be right on the frontline. Bad bad idea to appoint someone who does not it appears read the news and know geography.