6 ms·

> Every day he [Trump] remains in office, civil servants have to ask themselves if political appointees are being given their positions due to merit, or to pers

by rrggrr 9y ago

> Every day he [Trump] remains in office, civil servants have to ask themselves if political appointees are being given their positions due to merit, or to personal loyalty to Trump, or someone else in the Administration. Sounds like it was time for the author to move on and I wish him well, but his impact was highest inside the tent. With patience, flexibility and choosing his battles wisely he might have had some influence within his sphere of responsibilities. The author conflates norms for appearances. For good or bad Trump largely dispenses with appearances and practices his political maneuverings in the open, appearances be damned. But the practices are the same either way. I've interviewed for an executive branch position where having voted years prior for the opposite party disqualified me. I've worked in a state campaign where my relatives, having donated to the opposite party, placed me under suspicion. Patronage and loyalty testing are the OLDEST of political practices. None of this is new under Trump, and none of it ever changes except in times of indisputable and existential national crisis. Existential crisis is pretty much upon us. Much blame is deserved across the political spectrum for how we've arrived here.

francisofascii 9y ago
Reminds me of this quote supposedly said by Andrew Jackson: “If you have a job in your department that can't be done by a Democrat, then abolish the job."
- dragonwriter 9y ago
  Trump has repeatedly praised Jackson, so there may be a reason for that...
WorldMaker 9y ago
"This stuff happened before at a smaller scale by everyone," is a terrifying argument of normalization. It was wrong then. The norms were to crack down on that sort of thing when it happened. Now it's an excuse because the past wasn't perfect that we should normalize the worst excesses of wrongness as the new right. That's frightening.
- icebraining 9y ago
  Accepting reality as it is is not "normalization", it's just avoiding self-deception.
  - WorldMaker 9y ago
    Accepting reality and feeling like there is nothing you can do about it is the very definition of "normalization". You can accept reality, feel that it's flaws are not "normal", and still strive to make it better and more normal.
    - WorldMaker 9y ago
      Maybe useful analogy: "normal" here is used not as a synonym for reality but more in the way that it is used in computing, especially things like database architecture. I like to make my databases as normalized as I can. Doesn't mean that sometimes trade-offs don't result in realities/databases that aren't as normal as I would like.
    - icebraining 9y ago
      Accepting reality and feeling like there is nothing you can do about it is the very definition of "normalization". Exactly. Except that second part is nowhere in the first post.
- lucideer 9y ago
  I think you've read something into the GP that wasn't there. I don't see them justifying or excusing bad practices anywhere in the post. Merely stating that they occurred (which is true). > The norms were to crack down on that sort of thing when it happened This what the GP is really getting at. This was never cracked down on in the past (I have no clue where you'd get the idea from that it was) because it wasn't done in the open as it is now. Now that it's blatant, we may finally have an opportunity to fight it.
  - dragonwriter 9y ago
    > This what the GP is really getting at. This was never cracked down on in the past (I have no clue where you'd get the idea from that it was) because it wasn't done in the open as it is now. It wasn't done in the open because all kinds of structures, both formal and informal, were erected to crack down on it after the last time it was done so flagrantly in the open; OTOH, those have been systematically eroded over the last several decades so that with the political branches sand judiciary all in the hands of the same faction, they no longer function to restrain it.
AndrewKemendo 9y ago
But the practices are the same either way. Right, which is a big fucking problem. You're basically saying that the author was just naiive and that this is how it's worked all along. Which is true, and even more cause for concern. I left the government in 2015 because I recognized the same and didn't want to be part of it. The history of actually affecting change from the inside is dismal. In fact the government, in practice and enshrined by the constitution is REACTIONARY. It reacts based on what the people decide - either through voting (rarely impactful) or through money/influence (usually the case). As you said, how it's always been. So if you want to influence the government, any government, then you get power outside of the system and leverage it against the government.
ouid 9y ago
To generalize on your last point, the only way that blame and responsibility can possibly be conserved quantities is if they're both zero. If a system has 10 failsafes and fails regardless, then all ten of those failsafes have total responsibility for the failure. There is no reason to conserve your outrage.
praneshp 9y ago
>> I've interviewed for an executive branch position where having voted years prior for the opposite party disqualified me How the hell does the interviewer (or anyone) know who you voted for? What's the point of calling it a secret ballot if it's legal to get the answer out of you in an interview.
- neuronexmachina 9y ago
  I actually wonder if he meant he either (1) contributed to a candidate for a party, or if (2) he's on the record of voting while registered under a particular party affiliation. Those are all part of the public record, I think.
weirdstuff 9y ago
I worked in state and city campaigns for a number of years, and I just wanted to confirm what you've written: that patronage and loyalty testing IS at the center (among other things) of high-level political operations. It's a cynical view, for sure, but politics is a cynical business for the most part. (Or at least that was my experience and observation.) For many years I've observed an out-of-sight-out-of-mind approach by the citizenry towards the darker side of politics (beyond partisan horse racing and gotchas). No real demand for investigatory journalism, because who wants to pay for that? As long as "appearances were kept up" citizens seemed to dismiss the dirty stuff in favor of the shallow Gotcha Debates. Very frustrating to see corruption and/or neglect being ignored by the voter base in favor of Bread and Circus politics. The fact that Trump is just making this more obvious has a lot of people stirring about how this is a new phenomenon, when what's happening is that the machinations are being exposed more willingly by the current regime. It's difficult to shake up a world view when appearances suddenly don't matter (in a traditional sense). Wake up please! Still have some sunlight left.
NotSammyHagar 9y ago
The difference between Trump and all recent presidents is the degree of damage he does with his actions. It's not just a tiny bit more pushing the envelope, as I think your comments suggest. It's just wholesale cynical ignoring of reality. There was so much complaining about Hillary Clinton working on President Bill Clinton's health care, but she didn't have power, she was not employed, she was not sent off to work on 10 things she had no background in, unlike real estate investor and rich kid kushner. There is nepotism to a tremendous degree without any consideration, with the president's daughter, son in law working directly in govt positions, with security clearance. Also the loyalty pledges. HRC was not paid. Trump is in a different ballgame.
snowwrestler 9y ago
> The author conflates norms for appearances. The management of appearances is a reflection of the prevailing social norms. No one hides the fact that they drink water, because there is no norm that says drinking water is socially unacceptable. And even though we all know that folks make a living selling illegal drugs, there is still a big difference between drug dealers doing business in a vacant lot at 2am, vs drug dealers doing business openly in front of a school on a busy street at 9am. If they don't feel the need to hide, that says a lot about the surrounding society. In the recent past, people did hide their most egregious acts of political nepotism and corruption. Why? Because they violated social norms. Trump doesn't feel the need to, and yes, that is a significant change. Now the surrounding society needs to decide whether to tolerate it, thereby creating a new norm, or enforce the existing norm.

by rrggrr 9y ago

francisofascii 9y ago

Reminds me of this quote supposedly said by Andrew Jackson: “If you have a job in your department that can't be done by a Democrat, then abolish the job."

dragonwriter 9y ago
Trump has repeatedly praised Jackson, so there may be a reason for that...

WorldMaker 9y ago

"This stuff happened before at a smaller scale by everyone," is a terrifying argument of normalization. It was wrong then. The norms were to crack down on that sort of thing when it happened. Now it's an excuse because the past wasn't perfect that we should normalize the worst excesses of wrongness as the new right. That's frightening.

icebraining 9y ago
Accepting reality as it is is not "normalization", it's just avoiding self-deception.
- WorldMaker 9y ago
  Accepting reality and feeling like there is nothing you can do about it is the very definition of "normalization". You can accept reality, feel that it's flaws are not "normal", and still strive to make it better and more normal.
  - WorldMaker 9y ago
    Maybe useful analogy: "normal" here is used not as a synonym for reality but more in the way that it is used in computing, especially things like database architecture. I like to make my databases as normalized as I can. Doesn't mean that sometimes trade-offs don't result in realities/databases that aren't as normal as I would like.
  - icebraining 9y ago
    Accepting reality and feeling like there is nothing you can do about it is the very definition of "normalization". Exactly. Except that second part is nowhere in the first post.
lucideer 9y ago
I think you've read something into the GP that wasn't there. I don't see them justifying or excusing bad practices anywhere in the post. Merely stating that they occurred (which is true). > The norms were to crack down on that sort of thing when it happened This what the GP is really getting at. This was never cracked down on in the past (I have no clue where you'd get the idea from that it was) because it wasn't done in the open as it is now. Now that it's blatant, we may finally have an opportunity to fight it.
- dragonwriter 9y ago
  > This what the GP is really getting at. This was never cracked down on in the past (I have no clue where you'd get the idea from that it was) because it wasn't done in the open as it is now. It wasn't done in the open because all kinds of structures, both formal and informal, were erected to crack down on it after the last time it was done so flagrantly in the open; OTOH, those have been systematically eroded over the last several decades so that with the political branches sand judiciary all in the hands of the same faction, they no longer function to restrain it.

AndrewKemendo 9y ago

But the practices are the same either way. Right, which is a big fucking problem. You're basically saying that the author was just naiive and that this is how it's worked all along. Which is true, and even more cause for concern. I left the government in 2015 because I recognized the same and didn't want to be part of it. The history of actually affecting change from the inside is dismal. In fact the government, in practice and enshrined by the constitution is REACTIONARY. It reacts based on what the people decide - either through voting (rarely impactful) or through money/influence (usually the case). As you said, how it's always been. So if you want to influence the government, any government, then you get power outside of the system and leverage it against the government.

ouid 9y ago

To generalize on your last point, the only way that blame and responsibility can possibly be conserved quantities is if they're both zero. If a system has 10 failsafes and fails regardless, then all ten of those failsafes have total responsibility for the failure. There is no reason to conserve your outrage.

praneshp 9y ago

>> I've interviewed for an executive branch position where having voted years prior for the opposite party disqualified me How the hell does the interviewer (or anyone) know who you voted for? What's the point of calling it a secret ballot if it's legal to get the answer out of you in an interview.

neuronexmachina 9y ago
I actually wonder if he meant he either (1) contributed to a candidate for a party, or if (2) he's on the record of voting while registered under a particular party affiliation. Those are all part of the public record, I think.

weirdstuff 9y ago

I worked in state and city campaigns for a number of years, and I just wanted to confirm what you've written: that patronage and loyalty testing IS at the center (among other things) of high-level political operations. It's a cynical view, for sure, but politics is a cynical business for the most part. (Or at least that was my experience and observation.) For many years I've observed an out-of-sight-out-of-mind approach by the citizenry towards the darker side of politics (beyond partisan horse racing and gotchas). No real demand for investigatory journalism, because who wants to pay for that? As long as "appearances were kept up" citizens seemed to dismiss the dirty stuff in favor of the shallow Gotcha Debates. Very frustrating to see corruption and/or neglect being ignored by the voter base in favor of Bread and Circus politics. The fact that Trump is just making this more obvious has a lot of people stirring about how this is a new phenomenon, when what's happening is that the machinations are being exposed more willingly by the current regime. It's difficult to shake up a world view when appearances suddenly don't matter (in a traditional sense). Wake up please! Still have some sunlight left.

NotSammyHagar 9y ago

The difference between Trump and all recent presidents is the degree of damage he does with his actions. It's not just a tiny bit more pushing the envelope, as I think your comments suggest. It's just wholesale cynical ignoring of reality. There was so much complaining about Hillary Clinton working on President Bill Clinton's health care, but she didn't have power, she was not employed, she was not sent off to work on 10 things she had no background in, unlike real estate investor and rich kid kushner. There is nepotism to a tremendous degree without any consideration, with the president's daughter, son in law working directly in govt positions, with security clearance. Also the loyalty pledges. HRC was not paid. Trump is in a different ballgame.

snowwrestler 9y ago

> The author conflates norms for appearances. The management of appearances is a reflection of the prevailing social norms. No one hides the fact that they drink water, because there is no norm that says drinking water is socially unacceptable. And even though we all know that folks make a living selling illegal drugs, there is still a big difference between drug dealers doing business in a vacant lot at 2am, vs drug dealers doing business openly in front of a school on a busy street at 9am. If they don't feel the need to hide, that says a lot about the surrounding society. In the recent past, people did hide their most egregious acts of political nepotism and corruption. Why? Because they violated social norms. Trump doesn't feel the need to, and yes, that is a significant change. Now the surrounding society needs to decide whether to tolerate it, thereby creating a new norm, or enforce the existing norm.