WASHINGTON: The hottest political buzzword, “cronyism,” got a vigorous workout in Washington this week, as critics attacked US President George Bush’s alleged penchant for putting close friends in key administration posts, regardless of whether they are up to the job.
The president’s nomination of long time friend and personal attorney Harriet Miers to the US Supreme Court fuelled charges that Bush appears to care more about rewarding the loyalty of his long time buddies than finding the most qualified candidate for a wide range of federal government posts.
Some of the loudest criticism of Bush’s choice of Miers to go to the Supreme Court has come from conservatives within his own Republican Party.
“If Harriet Miers were not a crony of the president of the United States, her nomination to the Supreme Court would be a joke, as it would have occurred to no one else to nominate her,” wrote political columnist Charles Krauthammer in a scathing opinion piece shortly after her nomination.
“Being on the Supreme Court isn’t like winning a ‘Best Employee of the Month’ award,” raged Ann Coulter, another conservative pundit.
“However nice, helpful, prompt and tidy she is, Harriet Miers isn’t qualified to play a Supreme Court justice on “The West Wing,” let alone to be a real one,” said Coulter, referring to a fictional television series about the White House.
James Thurber, director of the Centre for Congressional and Presidential Studies at American University, said the age-old phenomenon of awarding jobs as political favours has been taken to new heights in the current administration, which “seems to be exceeding the quota one or two.”
“When you come to Washington, you don’t know who you can trust. So you bring your own cadre with you,” he said.
Unfortunately he said, “it becomes a matter of trust and personal relationships sometimes, more than competence.”
While it is an age-old phenomenon, the problem with awarding key posts to political cronies occurs, pundits said, when they fall down on the job.
“There are a number of offices where you just can’t afford a steep learning curve and you need somebody who is able to move quickly and make sharp policy decisions,” said Paul Light, a professor of public policy at New York University.
“I think in some cases this administration, like other administrations has erred too far on loyalty and political connections, and has not cared enough about expertise,” he said.—AFP
