I meant that most of them came from business. As opposed to academia. Cheney, Rumsfeld, Snow, and Bush are all from business backgrounds.
Cheney has been an apparatchik of the Republican party almost all of his adult life. He was tapped to be CEO of Haliburton by a collection of other CEO’s who figured he had the “right stuff” for the job. In no way did his connections to government figure in the equation. No. Uh-uh. It was his experience and executive acumen.
It is a central premise of Republican ideology that big businessmen are the best source of governance talent. After all, they own the country, it’s only fair they should run it.
Using the word “apparatchik” is a nasty way to merely say that he was loyal to his party. This is true of most people in politics.
I agree that his government connections helped him get this job. OTOH he obviously did have management talent. He had been chosen as the youngest White House Chief of Staff ever, and AFAIK did a fine job in that position.
You’re confusing stockholders with management. The Evil Rich own the country. CEOs like Dick Cheney earn more than you and I do, but they are still just hired hands to the Wealthy Overlords[sup]TM[/sup].
While my contempt and disdain for RepubCo (a wholly owned subsidiary of Moloch, Inc.) is well known, apparatchik is intended as a descriptive, and not as a pejorative. It is intended to imply such concepts as “functionary”, not necessarily something like “party hack”.
But just when I was thinking the Bushistas couldn’t get any more blatant in thier marketing oriented manipulation than the Gloat on the Boat, there’s this:
“On Tuesday, at a speech promoting his economic plan in Indianapolis, White House aides went so far as to ask people in the crowd behind Mr. Bush to take off their ties, WISH-TV in Indianapolis reported, so they would look more like the ordinary folk the president said would benefit from his tax cut.”
Reminds me of his Ol’ Daddy, talkng 'bout how he like to kick back with a bag of pork rinds and listen to country music. As a recovering redneck, I suppose I ought to be flattered that my kind of folks are held important enough to be pandered to. Were it not for the obvious implication that they think we are stupid enough to buy this kind of baloney. I hope they’re wrong. But most recent evidence indicates that they know exactly what they are doing.
You really think they were businessmen who happened upon politics, or just career politicians who used their conections to get jobs in between stints in office?
Lander:
You may be correct about that, but Sam’s point is still well taken. All things being equal, I tend to trust the guy who has spent at least SOME time in business (ie, the real world) as opposed to career politicians like Clinton and his “ilk”, to parphrase Peyton.
I still haven’t heard from any conservatives palpably uncomfortable with the PR program. They have to exist. I would be really uncomfortable with “my guy” allowing himself to be marketed this way. Even if (especially if) he were a decent, principled, non-flashy guy with the “correct” ideas.
This quote from the article is especially troubling:
“We pay particular attention to not only what the president says but what the American people see,” Mr. Bartlett said. “Americans are leading busy lives, and sometimes they don’t have the opportunity to read a story or listen to an entire broadcast. But if they can have an instant understanding of what the president is talking about by seeing 60 seconds of television, you accomplish your goals as communicators. So we take it seriously.”
That’s coming about as close as one can to saying “substance doesn’t matter, but we can dupe the idiots who don’t have time to listen to an ‘entire broadcast.’”
I continue to think conservatives in particular (if only because of their espoused belief that government is to be limited, and to serve as a means to an end, not an end in itself) should be troubled by the circular view of the Presidency as a stage to promote the President.
Or, as several have suggested, are we too far down the road toward infotainment and pandering to the Oprah audience that neither party will ever be able to stake out their claim as the non-glitzy, non-cult-of-personality camp?
Maybe, but I’d consider Cheney a “career politician”. He was in government service, either in Executive Branch agencies or in Congress consistantly from 1969-1993, which is most of his career.
It is true, more generally, though, that Clinton’s cabinet came more from academia.
There have always been honest conservatives who play straight and with a full deck. There has always been a worthy argument, the fate of the Republic being a game worth the candle. I suspect that they are growing increasingly disgusted with all of this: if not this puerile war, then the glory-mongering and mendacity that accompanies it.
If GeeDubya fails in his quest for a 2nd Installment, it may very well be because the McCains of the party won’t vote Democrat, but they won’t go out of thier way for GeeDub either.
Actually i believe the opposite is true. I am no expert on US affairs, but his straight-talking style seems at odds with the packaged slick guy you seem to suggest as do his famous Bushisms.If they wanted to package him, they would teach him to speak English at the very least. I am no fan of the guy, but he does seem the closest un-politician(if that is a word which i doubt)president in U;S history. They wouldnt let him shoot off all that Christian talk either, damn the man sounds genuine! Then again, maybe this comes with the package…
Huerta:
I wouldn’t call myself a conservative, but I’m sure a lot of people probably would characterize me that way, and I did vote for Bush in '00. I did state in my earlier post that the PR stuff turns me off. But I see it as a secondary (or terciary) issue. It’s too pervasive in politics (or any human endeavor) to just say you’re going to ignore anyone who smacks of PRisms. What are you supposed to do? When do we get the chance to vote for someone untatined by PR activities? Personally, I see it just as much a problem with the press, and the electorate, than with the pols. If there were no market for it, the pols wouldn’t do it. If the press didn’t pander to it (which is saying the same thing as there not being a market), the pols wouldn’t do it. I look at where the pols stand on the issues, and if they make a fool of themselves from time to time, well that’s just life.
As for the carrier landing, I actually thought it was pretty cool. If I had been on the ship, I’d’ve ben happy to have Bush fly out like that and greet us. And, fankly, it’s his opponents who are the one responsible for keeping this in the limelight. How many “conservatives” on this board have ever brought it up as some great achievement? Probably none. How many “liberals” have brought it up as a means to trash Bush? Plenty. Shut about it and it’ll go away (at least until the next election campaigne).
The only high level guy right now who seems genuinely uninterested in the whole PR angle is Powell. I’m sure there are some Dems out there, too, but none come to mind immediately. If Powell were to run for pres, the GOP machine would take over and you’d see him doing some silly things, too, most likely. Maybe he’d keep his speeches a bit more free of inane cliches, but I bet we’d see him spouting his share of catchy slogans with the rest of them.
You have a cite? seems to me he was defense sec. for George Bush I, which occurred somwhere in the 80’s, which incidently would intersect with those years.
As for my preference, I would prefer someone who had a business and government background. Failing that, I would prefer business over academia. Many, not all, academians do not live in the same world as ordinary people. YMMV
I agree. Rove is masterful at this, and him and others’s revitalizted the party. They’re really got control of stories: what issues become the issues, how they’re framed, when to announce something, and how, and so on. The recent tax bill is case in point. The “sunset” clause, like the original tax cut, is designed to decieve the public and hide all the costs. But it’s also too hard for most people to understand exactly how, and Democrats certainly can’t explain it, let alone stand up to it.
There’s also the difference in polling. Clinton’s administration used polling to find out what policies would be popular with the people. Bush’s administration has used polling mainly to figure out how to sell the policies that they want: what presentation will be the most popular: how should we frame this issue for maximum impact? And of course, flatly dening all the while that polling is something they do big time: that’s what Democrats do.
Well, I’d consider that “employed by an executive branch agency”
What I had meant to say was that he was a government employee in one way or another from 1969-1993.
Agreed. A lot of people equate smart with effective. Too often the “geniuses” think they know everything and therefore need to control every detail. A good CEO (and I like to think of the pres as a CEO) is a generalist who knows how to pick the right specialists. I believe that is why Bush has been fairly successful so far. Not to say that he’s the best generalist around by a long shot, but he’s smart enough to know that he doesn’t know everything. I don’t think you could say that about Clinton, although Clinton certainly had his degree of success.
A relevant quote from George W. Bush’s professed hero comes to mind:
Woe unto you… hypocrites! for ye make clean the outside of the cup and of the platter, but within they are full of extortion and excess. Matthew 23:25
Am I the only one bothered by the good businessman = good leader assumption? Seems to me the goals of a businessman and the goals of a president aren’t exactly the same. Nor do the talents needed seem to be the same.
Not by a long shot. Its a favorite mantra of the Pubbies, like “I’ve had to meet a payroll…” and so forth. Of course they scorn academics, academics (like Wellstone) are constantly pointing out the lack of Imperial clothing.
Guess we’re just lucky Ken Lay ain’t Vice President. On the other hand, why would he bother? Rich folks don’t have to actually drive the cars they buy, they hire help for that.
No need to worry, elucidator will do that for you.