Tom Smith, American Mao

    Tom Smith's reaction to the NYT piece on Palin is a bit curious.  Here is the first point:

-- Upon getting elected, Palin fires people who have held jobs for years ("professionals") and puts in people she has known for years, often going back to her high school days. Why a reform-minded politician would do this in a notoriously corrupt state is, of course, baffling.

 

   I think the intent is to express approval for Palin's approach to firing and hiring.  Assume it is so.  What we are told here (and at more length in the NYT article) is that when Palin came into office as governor she approached personnel issues by firing longtime state employees and replacing them with people whose qualification for office was personal loyalty to Palin.  Someone who liked cows was put in as  head of the agriculture department, for example.

    Smith thinks this is good because a reformer should bring in people loyal to the reformer.  Note the quotations around professional - from which I think we are to infer doubt as to the competency of those holding the jobs.  Nothing in the NYT article supports the negative inference, and Smith offers nothing in his post.  But that is not so very important.  What is important is the implied standard for employment.
 

   Experience in the relevant field is not a qualification for employment by the state.  The head of the transportation department need not have any background in transportation or any related field.  The Attorney General need not have management experience or experience with state litigation or criminal law.  Maybe a law degree?  Not clear.  All that matters is that Palin knows and likes the person and that the person is loyal to Palin. 

    This is not the standard even Smith's law school employs in hiring faculty -- loyalty to the dean.  It is not a standard which makes any sense at all in light of Smith's complaints about ideology in academic hiring.  I suppose it could be that law school hiring is more important than head of governmental departments.  I suppose there might be a difference in kind, though it is hard to make out what it would be.  Would Smith invest in a company whose CEO hired on the basis of loyalty without regard to competence?  Possible, I suppose, but unlikely I think.

    What sort of government is it that builds its cadres on loyalty instead of competence?  Well, a couple of examples come to mind.  Here in the happy land, there was Huey Long.  More recently, and better known I think, that would be the standard for late and unlamented Mao.  Anyone can do the job -- the proletarian can run everything and we have no need for experts or professionals.  Loyalty to the leader, that and enthusiasm, makes up for any other deficiency.  So, is Smith a Maoist underneath? 

    Hiring people because they are loyal is not what a reformer does, unless all one means by "reformer" is change, any change.  Then, of course, the only choice between Palin and her pals and the previous bug and his pals is who you think is more likely to pay you off somehow.  It is not improved government that you are after. 

    Or maybe just unconsidered reactions.  My side is the light of god, that sort of thing.

Comments

[Michael Drake]

That's dead on. You might enjoy Weisberg today. http://www.slate.com/id/2205567/