With the White House’s new Chief of Staff, Joshua Bolten, at the helm, changes in top-level administration posts are proceeding and promise plenty of policy and political shifts.
As Mr. Bolten drops pebbles (or boulders) into the pond of federal governance, the ripple effect could be considerable. We will have to wait before we can judge whether or not the resulting waves gently glide up the shoreline or crash over the banks and produce costly flooding.
It’s axiomatic that any company or organization dances to its boss’ tunes. The political ballet now playing at the White House will impact, for better or worse, how well the government serves its people.
Administrations set agendas, senior political appointees prescribe goals and objectives, and supervisors and staff execute programs. It’s always intriguing to observe how successfully every level interacts, and whether or not all the oars are collectively placed into the water with some reasonably decent degree of synchronicity and purpose.
Many are disillusioned about Katrina response, NSA surveillance, Iraqi war campaign, partisan bickering, and even the overall direction in which the country is moving. It will be interesting to observe how all this evolves between now and the November election and, certainly, if the Republicans lose the House, how well a lame duck administration can govern, if at all.
More factors come into play. Sabotage, unfortunately, can never be ruled out. I’m not talking terrorism. I’m talking Machiavellian maneuvering or just downright obstreperousness.
Too many times during my nearly 35 years in government, I’ve seen managers and employees deep-six programs or people with which they disagreed. Some folks were so smooth that they operated under the radar and it took months or years before the latent intent of their behaviors became apparent.
Although civil servants are to be non-partisan and deliver programs regardless of which party is in power, I have heard too many blatant political pronouncements or personal attacks about a sitting President which give me pause.
Disagreement with direction is one thing. Overt or covert subversion of mission is quite another. While I don’t presume to portray that there exists a substantial percentage of executive branch personnel motivated by politics, I fear that the mere placement of a few malcontents here and there could compromise the political will expressed at the ballot box by the electorate.
One thing’s certain. There won’t be a dearth of developments to dissect and discuss while we await the impact of Joshua Bolten’s musical chairs exercise.
++++
YETMO – “You’re Entitled To My Opinion,” A Balanced Point of View
Fred W. Apelquist, III, M.Ed.
Approximately 410 words.
© April 21, 2006